You are on page 1of 139

Downtown San Diego

Revised Draft Mobility Plan

April 2016
 
 

This page was intentionally left blank.
   

i | DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN
Acknowledgements 
CIVIC SAN DIEGO – BOARD OF DIRECTORS 
Jeff Gattas, Chair 
Rich Geisler, Vice Chair 
Murtaza Baxamusa, Director 
Michael Jenkins, Director 
Donna Jones, Director 
Robert Robinson, Director 
Phil Rath, Director 
Theodore Shaw, Director 
Carlos Vasquez, Director 
 
CIVIC SAN DIEGO – STAFF 
Brad Richter, Assistant Vice President – Planning 
Steven Bossi, Associate Planner 
 
DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN – TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE 
CITY OF SAN DIEGO 
Samir Hajjiri, Planning Department, Senior Traffic Engineer 
Maureen Gardiner, Planning Department, Associate Traffic Engineer 
Linda Marabian, Transportation & Storm Water Department, Deputy Director 
Brian Genovese, Transportation and Storm Water Department, Senior Traffic Engineer 
Ann French Gonsalves, Development Services Department, Senior Traffic Engineer 
Kamran Khaligh, Development Services Department, Associate Traffic Engineer 
Myra Herrmann, Planning Department, Senior Planner 
Sumer Hasenin, Transportation and Storm Water Department, Senior Engineer 
 
SANDAG 
Dave Schumacher, Principal Planner 
Chris Kluth, Active Transportation Program Manager 
Beth Robrahn, Active Transportation Planner 
Christine Eary, Active Transportation Planner 
 
MTS 
Mark Thomsen, Senior Transportation Planner 
Brent Boyd, Senior Transportation Planner 
   

DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN | ii
CONSULTANT TEAM 
CHEN RYAN ASSOCIATES, INC. 
Monique Chen, Project Manager 
Sherry Ryan, Principal‐in‐Charge 
Stephen Cook, Senior Project Engineer 
Phuong Nguyen, Project Engineer 
Sasha Jovanovic, Transportation Planner 
Andrew Prescott, Transportation Planner 
 
CAMBRIDGE SYSTEMATICS 
Michael Snavely, Associate Transportation Planner 
 
KOA CORPORATION 
Charlie Schwinger, Senior Civil Engineer 
Laura Parsons, Senior Civil Engineer 
 
MIG, INC. 
Rick Barrett, Principal 
Andy Pendoley, Public Outreach 
 
RECON ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. 
Lisa Lind, Principal Environmental Planner 
Alyssa Muto, Senior Environmental Planner 
Greg Kazmer, Associate Environmental Analyst 
   

iii | DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN
Table of Contents 
1  Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1 
1.1  Downtown Travel Context .................................................................................................................. 2 
1.2  Regulatory Context ............................................................................................................................. 2 
1.3  Active Travel Trends & Health Outcomes ........................................................................................... 5 
1.4  Downtown San Diego Plans ................................................................................................................ 5 
1.5  Planning Process ................................................................................................................................. 8 
1.6  Plan Organization ................................................................................................................................ 9 
2  Community Involvement ....................................................................................................................... 11 
2.1  Stakeholder Interviews ..................................................................................................................... 11 
2.2  On‐the Street Outreach Surveys ....................................................................................................... 13 
2.3  Community Workshops .................................................................................................................... 14 
2.4  Project Website ................................................................................................................................. 16 
3  Complete Streets .................................................................................................................................. 17 
3.1  Vision ................................................................................................................................................. 17 
3.2  The Layered Network ........................................................................................................................ 18 
3.3  Street Typologies ............................................................................................................................... 20 
3.4  Mode Share ....................................................................................................................................... 22 
3.5  Goals & Policies ................................................................................................................................. 23 
3.6  Complete Streets Recommendations ............................................................................................... 24 
4  Pedestrian Movement .......................................................................................................................... 29 
4.1  Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................................ 29 
4.2  Goals & Policies ................................................................................................................................. 31 
4.3  Pedestrian Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 32 
5  Bicycling ................................................................................................................................................ 39 
5.1  Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................................ 39 
5.2  Goals & Policies ................................................................................................................................. 41 
5.3  Bicycle Recommendations ................................................................................................................ 42 
6  Transit ................................................................................................................................................... 57 
6.1  Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................................ 57 
6.2  Goals & Policies ................................................................................................................................. 61 
6.3  Transit Recommendations ................................................................................................................ 62 
7  Vehicular Traffic .................................................................................................................................... 65 
7.1  Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................................ 65 
7.2  Goals & Policies ................................................................................................................................. 67 
7.3  Street Recommendations ................................................................................................................. 67 
8  Transportation Demand Management ................................................................................................. 75 
8.1  Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................................ 75 
8.2  Goals & Policies ................................................................................................................................. 78 
8.3  TDM Recommendations ................................................................................................................... 79 
9  Parking .................................................................................................................................................. 81 
9.1  Goals & Policies ................................................................................................................................. 81 
9.2  Parking Management ........................................................................................................................ 82 
10  Intelligent Transportation Systems ....................................................................................................... 87 

DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN | iv
10.1  Goals & Policies ................................................................................................................................. 87 
11  Airports, Passenger Rail, & Goods Movement ...................................................................................... 89 
11.1  Goals & Policies ................................................................................................................................. 91 
12  Storm Water ......................................................................................................................................... 93 
12.1  Goals & Policies ................................................................................................................................. 93 
13  Implementation .................................................................................................................................... 95 
13.1  Implementation Strategies ............................................................................................................... 95 
13.2  Short‐ and Long‐Range Projects ....................................................................................................... 96 
13.3  Design Concepts ................................................................................................................................ 99 
13.4  Cost Estimation ............................................................................................................................... 102 
13.5  Funding Sources .............................................................................................................................. 102 
13.6  Monitoring ...................................................................................................................................... 104 
 
 
List of Tables 
Table 2‐1  Stakeholder Interview Key Findings .................................................................................... 12 
Table 2‐2  Community Workshop #1 Input Summary .......................................................................... 15 
Table 3‐1  Network Miles by Street Typology ...................................................................................... 28 
Table 5‐1  California Bicycle Facility Classifications .............................................................................. 48 
Table 7‐1  Proposed Road Diets............................................................................................................ 72 
Table 7‐2  Proposed Lane Diets ............................................................................................................ 73 
Table 8‐1  TDM Strategies .................................................................................................................... 75 
Table 9‐1  Short‐Range Parking Changes .............................................................................................. 86 
Table 9‐2  Long‐Range Parking Changes............................................................................................... 86 
Table 13‐1  Short‐Range Projects ........................................................................................................... 97 
Table 13‐2  Long‐Range Projects ............................................................................................................ 99 
Table 13‐3  Cycle Track Intersection Types .......................................................................................... 100 
Table 13‐4  Planning Level Cost Estimation .......................................................................................... 102 
Table 13‐5  Funding Sources ................................................................................................................. 103 
 
 
   

v | DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN
List of Figures 
Figure 3‐1  Layered Mobility Network ................................................................................................... 19 
Figure 3‐2  Planned Downtown Mobility Network ................................................................................ 25 
Figure 3‐3  Complete Streets Recommendations.................................................................................. 26 
Figure 3‐4  Road Diets Accommodating Complete Streets ................................................................... 27 
Figure 4‐1  Pedestrian Needs ................................................................................................................. 30 
Figure 4‐2  Proposed Greenways ........................................................................................................... 33 
Figure 4‐3  Typical Greenway Concept .................................................................................................. 34 
Figure 5‐1  Bicycle Needs ....................................................................................................................... 40 
Figure 5‐2  Proposed Bicycle Network ................................................................................................... 43 
Figure 5‐3  Typical Cycleway Concepts .................................................................................................. 44 
Figure 5‐4  J Street Two‐Way Cycle Track Photo Simulation ................................................................. 46 
Figure 5‐5  Cycle Track Crossing Cycle Track Plan View and Photo Simulation .................................... 47 
Figure 5‐6  Change in Observed Bicycle Volume after Implementing Cycle Tracks .............................. 49 
Figure 5‐7  Proposed Cycle Track Network ............................................................................................ 50 
Figure 5‐8  Typical Cycle Track Driveway Treatment Concept .............................................................. 51 
Figure 6‐1  Transit Needs ....................................................................................................................... 58 
Figure 6‐2  2050 Revenue Constrained Transit Network ...................................................................... 60 
Figure 6‐3  Proposed Transitways .......................................................................................................... 63 
Figure 6‐4  Park Boulevard Transitway Cross‐Section ........................................................................... 64 
Figure 7‐1  Street and Freeway Needs .................................................................................................. 66 
Figure 7‐2  Proposed Autoways ............................................................................................................. 68 
Figure 7‐3  Typical Autoway Cross‐Section ............................................................................................ 69 
Figure 7‐4  Proposed One‐Way to Two‐Way Street Conversions ......................................................... 71 
Figure 13‐1  Cycle Track Intersection Types .......................................................................................... 101 
 
 
Appendices 
Appendix A  Relevant Citywide, Adjacent Community, and Regional Planning Efforts 
Appendix B  On‐the‐Street Survey Forms & Results  
Appendix C  San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan Revenue Constrained Transit Network Changes 
Appendix D  TDM Strategies   
Appendix E  Planning‐Level Cost Estimation 
Appendix F  Intersection Design Concepts  
Appendix G  Additional Design Concepts  
 
 
 
   

DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN | vi
 
 
 
 

This page was intentionally left blank.

vii | DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN
CHAPTER 1 | INTRODUCTION

1 Introduction
   
   
   
City centers across the nation are experiencing  The Downtown San Diego Mobility Plan (“Mobility 
revival and renaissance.  Urbanized communities  Plan”) presents a balanced, multimodal long‐range 
are becoming increasingly desirable, with more  plan for transportation, setting the stage for 
people showing interest in living and working in  Downtown San Diego (“Downtown”) to become a 
locations with a variety of mobility, cultural,  world‐class urban center that both accommodates 
entertainment, employment, and housing options.   high quality urban living for its residents and 
A combination of transportation strategies is  workers and attracts visitors from across the nation 
needed to accommodate these shifting attitudes  and world.   
and accompanying influx of residents, employees,   
and visitors to urbanized areas – even more so in  With these trends in mind, Civic San Diego and the 
downtown areas already experiencing high  City of San Diego are committed to a vision for 
concentrations of residential and employment  Downtown that supports a lifestyle where active 
populations.  transportation options, specifically walking and 
  bicycling, are comfortable, safe and fun.  
   

DOWNTOWN MOBILITY VISION
An integrated transportation network of greenways,
sidewalks, bikeways, transit services, roadways and
freeways that provides for the safety of all travelers
– including the elderly, youth and disabled – both
within Downtown and to surrounding communities.
It is a transportation network that provides
convenient access to valuable community resources
such as employment centers, parks and the
waterfront, cultural and entertainment attractions,
and civic uses. It is a transportation network that
supports community health and well-being,
promotes a strong economy, and also builds social
capital.
 
 
The Mobility Plan emphasizes the development of 
active transportation networks and the 
improvement of the walking and cycling 
environments, as these modes are not as advanced 
as transit and auto networks in terms of safe, 
quality facilities.  In addition, the City of San Diego 
has authority over these active transportation 
  facilities while it does not operate transit services 
  within the city. 
 

DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN | 1
CHAPTER 1 | INTRODUCTION
 

The development of active transportation facilities 
will involve the repurposing of Downtown’s 
roadways with landscaping and greenery, providing 
streets where pedestrians and cyclists feel safe, and 
integrating a strong network of protected bikeways 
so that bicycle travel becomes a true option for the 
majority of residents and visitors.  Taken together, 
implementation of this Plan promises to transform 
Downtown into a healthier, greener, economically 
vibrant city center with far‐reaching attraction. 
 

1.1 Downtown Travel  
Context  

Downtown is unique compared to other 
communities in the San Diego region in terms of its 
mix, intensity, and concentration of land uses.  
These characteristics in turn create travel demands 
not experienced elsewhere in the region, 
supporting the need for a “complete streets” 
approach to mobility planning that accommodates 
and balances all travel modes.  
   
When compared to the City of San Diego and the 
County of San Diego, Downtown residents report a  1.2 Regulatory Context
relatively low rate of commuting by car.  Downtown 
residents report much higher walking commute  Statewide and local legislative trends of the past 
rates (17.7%) than the City of San Diego (2.9%) and  decade create a sense of urgency for this Plan.  
the County (2.7%) and slightly higher cycling levels.   Significant trends toward multimodalism reflect a 
The share of transit commuters is also higher in  notable shift and are important background for this 
Downtown (6.1%) when compared to the City  planning process. 
(3.9%) and the County (3.1%).   
  Recent State Legislative Actions 
Notably, these data depict commuters traveling to  The State of California is in the midst of a radical 
work and do not reflect school commuters or other  transformation that will forever change 
non‐work trips.  In addition to commute mode  transportation planning, and more importantly, 
differences, average commute times vary between  how future generations travel across the state. 
these three geographies, with average Downtown   
commute travel times over 12% less than the  In 2006, AB 32 introduced mandatory GHG 
County average1.  emission reduction requirements, which was 
followed by the Complete Streets Act in 2008, 
requiring cities and counties to plan multimodal 
transportation networks that consider all travel 
modes and users.  SB 743 modified the existing 
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by 
                                                             removing auto delay, level of service (LOS), parking 
1
 2012 American Community Survey 5‐Year Estimates.  and other vehicular capacity measures as metrics of 

2 | DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN
CHAPTER 1 | INTRODUCTION

transportation system impacts to mixed‐use, infill, 
or transit oriented development projects.  More 
recently, in 2014, Caltrans formally endorsed the 
National Association of City Transportation Officials’ 
(NACTO) guidelines which include innovative bicycle 
facilities and pedestrian walkways, as part of an 
effort to provide flexibility in potential active travel 
infrastructure and to increase the sustainability of 
California’s transportation system.  These changes 
reflect a continued shift in California’s 
transportation‐related institutional foundation that 
promises to create healthier, cleaner, lower‐
resource consuming, and better connected 
communities. 
 
Regional and Local Regulatory
Changes
The state level legislative shifts have resulted in 
increased funding for active transportation related 
projects and programs.  In 2014, SANDAG adopted 
the Regional Complete Streets Policy, as a means of 
encouraging the development of a regional 
transportation system that is safe, useful and 
attractive for motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, 
transit users, and freight movement.  This policy 
complements the existing regional planning 
framework based on smart growth and 
sustainability, and provides a regional level 
response to the State’s adoption of AB 1358. 
 
The State’s Active Transportation Program, 
established in 2013 with the adoption of SB 99, 
made over $13 million dollars available for SANDAG 
to distribute throughout the region over the course 
of three years.  Additionally, SANDAG established 
the regional Active Transportation Working Group 
in 2013 to provide input on regional active   
 
transportation policy, planning and implementation 
The City of San Diego adopted the Climate Action 
activities. 
Plan (CAP) in December 2015 to identify effective 
 
measures for meeting greenhouse gas (GHG) 
In 2013 the San Diego region experienced a historic 
emission reduction targets set for 2020 and 2035.  
financial commitment when the SANDAG Board of 
One of the CAP’s key strategies is to increase 
Directors approved the Regional Bike Plan Early 
cycling, walking, and rapid transit users, and 
Action Program – a $200 million initiative to expand 
improve accessibility for vulnerable groups, such as 
the regional bike network and complete high‐
children, the elderly, people with disabilities, and 
priority projects within a decade. 
the economically disadvantaged. 

DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN | 3
CHAPTER 1 | INTRODUCTION
 

Additionally, the 43% forecast active transportation 
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN TARGETS mode share for Downtown San Diego is much 
higher than the CAP Transit Priority Area target of 
Some of the CAP’s targets include the following:
25%. Transit improvements are beyond the scope 
 Achieve mass transit mode share of 12% of the Mobility Plan.  Public transportation 
by 2020 and 25% by 2035 in Transit infrastructure is planned, engineered, and built by 
Priority Areas. SANDAG, and operated by MTS, NCTD, and Amtrak.  
 Achieve walking commuter mode share of The Mobility Plan incorporates the improvements 
3% by 2020 and 7% by 2035 in Transit identified in San Diego Forward The Regional Plan, 
Priority Areas. resulting in a forecast buildout transit mode share 
of 11%. 
 Achieve 6% bicycle commuter mode share
by 2020 and 18% mode share by 2035 in  
Transit Priority Areas. The dense concentration of residential and 
employment‐related land uses, combined with 
 Reduce average vehicle commute infrastructure improvements, will enable 
distance by two miles through Downtown San Diego to make great strides towards 
implementation of the General Plan City of
achieving the targets set forth in the adopted CAP. 
Villages Strategy by 2035.
 
 
  Taken together, these regulatory changes at the 
The CAP also recognizes the importance of  state, regional, and local levels show strong 
coordinated land use and transportation planning,  evidence of growing support for shifting how we 
acknowledging that community design factors into  travel, for re‐purposing local roadways to 
transportation choices.  The CAP strategies closely  accommodate modes other than cars, and to 
align with the broader complete streets philosophy  increase the overall health of our communities by 
as well as the Downtown Mobility Plan vision.  making them desirable for walking and cycling. 
   
The charts below serve to compare the forecast  The 2013 California addendum to the 2009 National 
buildout mode share (2035) for the Downtown  Household Travel Survey (CA‐NHTS) reported that 
Mobility Plan to the 2035 CAP mode share targets  the share of 2010‐2012 daily trips made by walking, 
for Transit Priority Areas.  As shown, the forecast  public transportation and bicycling have each 
auto mode share for Downtown San Diego of 46% is  doubled since 2000.  The gains made by these three 
closely aligned with the CAP auto mode share  modes, a combined total of about 11%, parallels 
target of 50%.   the rate of decline in auto trip shares – from 60.2% 
in 2000 to 49.3% in 2012. 

     

4 | DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN
CHAPTER 1 | INTRODUCTION

Statewide Comparison of Mode Distribution (2010 – 2012 and 2000)

 
Source: 2010 – 2012 California Household Travel Survey Final Report

1.3 Active Travel Trends & people at risk for multiple negative health 
outcomes. 
Health Outcomes  

Travel patterns in California have followed federal,  1.4 Downtown San Diego
state, regional and local investments.  Over the 
Plans
three decades from 1960 to 1990, investments 
were focused on roadways and highways and 
This section describes previous Downtown planning 
consequently driving is the primary mode of travel.  
efforts.  Relevant citywide, regional, and adjacent 
Since 2000, transportation funding is becoming 
community planning documents are discussed in 
more flexible with expanding investments in 
Appendix A.  These planning efforts provide 
multimodal facilities and shifts in travel shares. 
important context for the development of the 
Mobility Plan. 
 
Since 2000, transportation funding is Downtown Community Plan (2006)
becoming more flexible with
This document proposes planned mobility 
expanding investments in multimodal improvements for Downtown, as well as for several 
facilities and shifts in travel shares. roadways connecting to surrounding communities.  
An amendment to the Downtown Community Plan 
  will accompany the adoption of the Mobility Plan to 
Mode choice also has significant health  include a new Mobility Chapter, replacing the 
implications.  The way we choose to travel has  existing Transportation Chapter.  The Community 
subsequent health effects on individuals and  Plan promotes reconfiguring streets where feasible 
surrounding communities.  Individuals are positively  in residential neighborhoods and in neighborhood 
affected by the physical activity benefits of walking  centers to accommodate diagonal parking, widen 
and biking, and can be adversely affected by stress  sidewalks, and improve pedestrian and bicycle 
and time spent sedentary in long vehicle  safety. It also promotes improving Broadway to 
commutes.  In addition, air and noise emissions  reflect its status as Downtown’s principal 
from motor vehicles create conditions that put  boulevard. 

DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN | 5
CHAPTER 1 | INTRODUCTION

corridors, and retain the historic scale of 
the streets. 
 
Another important goal of the plan is to re‐connect 
Downtown to the surrounding neighborhoods. The 
Plan encourages re‐dedication of Park Boulevard as 
a pedestrian corridor and green street to provide 
the “Park‐to‐Bay” connection.  The Plan also 
promotes evaluation of removing the Cedar Street 
off‐ramp, and switching Cedar Street from one‐way 
to two‐way traffic to improve pedestrian safety and 
re‐establish the historic connection between Balboa 
Park, Cortez, Little Italy, and the waterfront. 
Another way the plan promotes connecting 
  Downtown to Balboa Park is through a local shuttle 
The Community Plan sets forth several mobility 
service.  There are also regional connections for 
goals that are relevant to this Downtown San Diego 
bicycle mobility such as the San Diego Bayshore 
Mobility Plan:   
Bikeway.  
Pedestrian and Bicycle Movement:   
 Develop a cohesive and attractive walking  Downtown Public Open Space
and bicycle system within Downtown that 
Implementation Plan Effort (2012)
provides linkages within the area and to 
surrounding neighborhoods.  This planning effort proposed a vision for open 
spaces in the community emphasizing Downtown’s 
 Facilitate development of mixed‐use 
value as the center of the City and its street 
neighborhoods, with open spaces, services, 
network as a crucial component of the public realm.  
and retail within convenient walking 
The planning effort encouraged using park 
distance of residents, to maximize 
equivalencies and joint‐use spaces to meet acreage 
opportunities for walking. 
deficits and converting traffic and parking space 
 
into open space opportunities. 
Transit System: 
 
 Provide land uses to support a flexible, fast, 
frequent, and safe transit system that 
provides connections within Downtown and 
beyond. 
 Increase transit use among Downtown 
residents, workers, and visitors. 
 
Street System:  
 Develop street typology based on 
functional and urban design considerations, 
emphasizing connections and linkages,   
pedestrian and cyclist comfort, transit   
movement, and compatibility with adjacent  A network of pedestrian promenades, specifically 
land uses.  along Cedar Street, E Street, Island Avenue, Union 
Street, 8th Avenue, and 14th Street were proposed 
 Maintain, re‐establish, and enhance the  to connect Downtown’s open spaces and create 
street grid to promote flexibility of  unique, attractive corridors for pedestrians.  
movement, preserve and/or open view 

6 | DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN
CHAPTER 1 | INTRODUCTION

Significant public input was collected and policies  Comprehensive Parking Plan for
developed, however, the planning effort was  Downtown San Diego (2009)
suspended and never officially adopted although 
key goals and policies embraced by the community  This document provides guidance and 
are incorporated into this plan.  Key strategies  implementation tools for parking strategies 
identified during this planning process include the  addressing parking infrastructure, supply, demand, 
following:  policy requirements, and management. The Plan 
anticipates that new development in Downtown 
 The re‐utilization of existing public rights‐ will add parking supply but there will be parking 
of‐way for open space opportunities, and  deficiencies in the neighborhoods of East Village, 
 Creating a series of linear park promenades  Little Italy, Cortez Hill, and Columbia between the 
along the Downtown Community Plan  years 2015 and 2030.  The neighborhoods of 
designated green streets connecting  Marina and Civic Core could also experience 
existing and proposed public parks.   deficiencies by 2030.  The Plan promotes the 
  implementation of demand management strategies 
The planning effort was suspended due to the loss  to reduce parking demand in Downtown and its 
of funding associated with the dissolution of  surrounding communities when parking reaches 
redevelopment agencies by the State; however,  85% of capacity. Strategies include using incentives 
these key ideas which continue to be supported by  to promote transit use 
the public are being incorporated into the Mobility  and non‐vehicular 
Plan.  modes of travel. 
   
Downtown Design Guidelines (2011) Other strategies 
encourage the 
This document helps implement the guidelines and  minimum 85% 
principles of the Downtown Community Plan and  utilization of all 
provides guidance to further enhance the natural  parking spaces, as well 
beauty, physical character, and livability of  as policies for shared 
Downtown.  Chapter 2, the Urban Design  parking and 
Framework, establishes an image for Downtown  uncoupling parking 
emphasizing a legible hierarchy of street corridors  spaces reserved for 
and pathways and a clear network of linkages  single uses. 
between Downtown districts and neighborhoods.   
The Urban Design Framework also focuses on the   
public realm, including streets, sidewalks, parks,  Centre City Streetscape Manual (1992
and plazas where 
– Updated through 2012)
public life takes 
place.  Figures 2‐1  This document provides guidance for improving the 
through 2‐3 of the  functionality and aesthetic quality of Downtown 
document display  through a streetscape improvement program.  The 
the overall urban  Manual requires construction of improvements that 
design framework,  enhance the quality of the pedestrian environment 
including the street  focusing on safety, convenience, and encouraging 
hierarchy and  walking. The neighborhoods should have their own 
linkages.  character through the use of street trees, sidewalk 
  paving, and street lighting in the public right‐of‐
way. 
 

DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN | 7
CHAPTER 1 | INTRODUCTION

The Manual also  significant community involvement, TAG input, and 
classifies each  City and Civic San Diego staff review. 
Downtown street as a   
Neighborhood Street,  A key planning strategy employed for network 
Special Street,  development included the overlaying of mode‐
Gateway Street, or  specific networks to create a “layered network” 
Ceremonial Street  that would promise strong connectivity throughout 
based on the  Downtown neighborhoods,  and between 
associated land uses,  Downtown and adjacent neighborhoods, for all 
architecture, scale,  types of travelers. 
and vehicular traffic   
along those streets.  Plan Development and Implementation Strategies:  
  Once a preferred network for Downtown – 
  addressing all modes of travel – was agreed upon 
  and thoroughly vetted with community members, 
stakeholders, the TAG, and City and Civic San Diego 
1.5 Planning Process staff, the plan document was initiated.  The plan 
document includes a chapter related to complete 
A four‐phased planning process was employed for  streets, and then individual chapters for each 
the Mobility Plan as depicted in the flow chart  mode.  The chapters were structured to present a 
below.  The four phases include Existing Conditions  summary of existing conditions and issues, policy 
Assessments (in orange), Developing  language, and plan proposals.  Implementation 
Recommendations (in light blue), Plan Development  strategies were developed to identify key funding 
and Implementation Strategies (in dark blue), and  and regulatory mechanisms for bringing the plan to 
Environmental Analysis (in green).  Each of these  fruition over time and for identifying high priority 
phases is discussed below.  projects with conceptual designs. 
   
Existing Conditions Assessments:  A comprehensive  Environmental Analysis: A Supplemental 
existing conditions report was prepared for  Environmental Impact Report was prepared to 
Downtown addressing pedestrian, cycling, transit  provide CEQA clearance for the Plan.  The City as 
and vehicular systems and associated travel  the Lead Agency working with Civic San Diego, 
behaviors.  Travel demands, deficiencies,  determined that the Mobility Plan required the 
opportunities and constraints were extensively  preparation of a SEIR in compliance with CEQA.  The 
documented for each mode.  The data collection  Mobility Plan amends the 2006 Downtown 
and analysis was complimented with community  Community Plan and replaces the existing 
outreach, including stakeholder interviews,  Transportation Chapter with a new Mobility 
meetings with a Technical Advisory Group (TAG)  Chapter.  The SEIR analyzed the potential 
consisting of SANDAG, MTS, City of San Diego and  environmental impacts of the proposed Plan as 
Civic San Diego staff, a public workshop, on‐the‐ compared to the approved Downtown Community 
street surveying, and online surveying.  Plan for specific issue areas such as land use and 
  planning, transportation, greenhouse gas emissions, 
Developing Recommendations:  This phase of the  air quality, noise, and hydrology/water quality.  The 
planning process focused on identifying and crafting  Draft SEIR was circulated for public review. The 
a vision for overall mobility in Downtown, and then  comments received during the public review 
developing policy language and mobility network  period, and responses, were incorporated into the 
recommendations that would help achieve this  Final SEIR before being considered by the City 
vision.  This phase was again supported by  Council. 

8 | DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN
CHAPTER 1 | INTRODUCTION

 
 
 
cycle track network map figure, distinguishing 
1.6 Plan Organization between one‐ and two‐way cycle tracks. 
 
Following this introductory Chapter, the remainder  Chapter 6 describes existing transit conditions and 
of the Mobility Plan is organized as follows:  introduces transit related goals and policies.  
  Chapter 6 also presents the proposed Transitways, 
Chapter 2 presents efforts made to engage  identifying corridors where transit and transit users 
community members and key stakeholders  are prioritized. 
throughout the plan’s preparation, and describes   
how their input shaped the overall project  Chapter 7 presents existing conditions and goals 
approach and vision of the Mobility Plan.  and policies related to the street system.  The 
  Autoways network is presented, identifying 
Chapter 3 describes the Downtown vision and the  corridors where vehicular efficiency should be 
incorporation of complete streets into the Mobility  emphasized while also considering safety.  The 
Plan, presenting the approach to defining the  Chapter also identifies one‐way street segments 
network and the assigned street typologies.  The  proposed for conversion to two‐way travel to 
Chapter concludes with a set of complete streets  provide for increased vehicular mobility.   
goals and policies, which closely follow the vision,   
and set the tone for the proceeding mode‐specific  Chapter 8 discusses existing Transportation Demand 
chapters.  Management (TDM) programs, goals and policies 
  related to TDM.  This Chapter also includes TDM 
Chapter 4 summarizes the existing pedestrian  recommendations related to active transportation, 
conditions and introduces the goals and policies  such as wayfinding, bike parking, bike sharing, Open 
related to pedestrian movement.  The Chapter  Streets events and community education, as well as 
concludes by introducing the proposed Greenways  conventional TDM strategies, including public 
network and provides a description of the defining  transit, ridesharing, carsharing, parking, and flexible 
characteristics of a Greenway.  work schedules. 
   
Chapter 5 addresses the bicycling mode, presenting  Chapter 9 presents goals and policies related to 
a summary of existing conditions and introduces  parking and identifies the existing parking 
the goals and policies.  Chapter 5 also presents the  management programs.  Chapter 9 concludes with 
proposed bicycle network, identifying the different  recommended parking strategies to consider for 
bicycle facility types.  The Chapter also includes a  the future, including shared public parking facilities, 

DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN | 9
CHAPTER 1 | INTRODUCTION

advertising, enhanced bicycle and pedestrian 
facilities, shared parking agreements, dynamic 
message signs, dynamic pricing, and enhanced 
parking enforcement. 
 
Chapter 10 introduces the goals and policies related 
to Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) which 
aim to utilize technology to maximize the efficiency 
and effectiveness of multimodal transportation 
systems. 
 
Chapter 11 presents the goals and policies 
associated with the Airports, Passenger Rail, and 
Goods Movement in the region, within the 
Downtown context. 
 
Chapter 12 introduces the goals and policies related 
to Storm Water runoff and provides a summary of 
the City of San Diego Storm Water Standards and 
how the Mobility Plan fits within the standards. 
 
The concluding Chapter 13 is focused on plan 
implementation and potential funding 
opportunities.  This Chapter presents conceptual 
designs for the recommendations set forth in the 
Downtown Mobility Plan and provides strategies 
that may assist with implementation. 
 
 

10 | DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN
CHAPTER 2 | COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

2 Community Involvement
 
 
 
Throughout the planning process, community 
involvement played a critical role in shaping the 
overall project approach and vision of the Mobility 
Plan.  Civic San Diego and the project team 
conducted a multi‐pronged approach to engaging 
community members and key stakeholders during 
the planning process to ensure a wide range of 
visions, issues, opportunities and priorities 
informed development of the plan.  Residents, 
businesses, property owners, tenants, visitors, and 
employees of Downtown businesses were provided 
the opportunity to participate in a variety of 
community involvement activities, including 
Stakeholder Interviews, On‐the‐Street Outreach 
Survey, Community Workshops, Public Scoping 
Meeting, and a Project Website. 
 
This Chapter provides a summary of each activity 
and the key findings.  More detailed summaries are 
available from Civic San Diego (www.civicsd.com). 
 

2.1 Stakeholder Interviews
Civic San Diego identified and invited key 
stakeholders to meet in small groups 
(approximately 8‐12 people each) to discuss the 
project.  The groups and interviews summarized in 
this document include the following: 
 City of San Diego Planning Department, 
Tuesday, March 25, 2014    
 
 Active Transportation Advocates, Thursday, 
Separately, Civic San Diego project team members 
March 27, 2014  
engaged additional key stakeholders in informal 
 Downtown Neighborhood Groups, 
discussions including public safety representatives, 
Wednesday, April 9, 2014 
urban design and planning groups, and land 
 Downtown Partnership Planning and Policy 
developers.  
Committee, April 10, 2014 
 
 Downtown Community Planning Council 
Key Findings
Subcommittee, April 10, 2014 
 Upper East Village Developers/Property  Key findings from the stakeholder interviews are 
Owners, April 11, 2014  presented in Table 2‐1. 

DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN | 11
CHAPTER 2 | COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

 
Table 2-1 Stakeholder Interview Key Findings
Visions
Destinations are connected.
All modes are supported in a layered network.
New and existing places are activated in the public and private realms.
Best practices and creative designs apply new solutions.
Mobility and land use planning are linked and mutually supportive.
Near and long-term solutions are implemented in a phased approach.
Opportunities
Strengthen linkages between pedestrian and transit planning.
Develop flexible street designs and functionality at specific locations/corridors.
Support each district’s uniqueness through streetscape and urban design.
Create “green” streets that are attractive and leverage stormwater regulations and funding.
Link to bikeway planning in adjacent communities.
Improve traffic and pedestrian safety at freeway access points.
Apply new, multimodal modeling tools.
Improve utilization of existing parking through programming, wayfinding/signage, and sharing.
Destinations to Connect
Little Italy Civic Center Bankers Hill
Columbia Seaport District Uptown
East Village Convention Center Golden Hill
Marina Ballpark Barrio Logan
Waterfront City College Five Points
Broadway Pier Horton Plaza Airport
Santa Fe Depot Balboa Park Mission Valley
Corridors
Ash St Market St 4th Ave
A St Island Ave 5th Ave
B St Cedar St 6th Ave
C St Pacific Highway 10th Ave
E St Harbor Drive 11th Ave
F St India Park Boulevard
G St Kettner Blvd 14th St
Broadway Front St 15th St
 
 
         
 

12 | DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN
CHAPTER 2 | COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

2.2 On-the Street Outreach  
The survey targeted people who live and/or work in 
Surveys Downtown and involved a total of 123 people 
across a range of age groups, gender, income levels, 
The purpose of the on‐the‐street outreach surveys  and the four project locations related to major 
was to engage people who live and work in the  design concepts.   
Downtown community to provide feedback on their   
travel patterns and potential design concepts for  Two project team members worked together at 
key locations in Downtown.  The on‐the‐street  each of these locations and times on weekdays, 
outreach focused on the following objectives:  where major design concepts are currently under 
1. Explain (briefly) the purpose of the plan.  study: 

2. Collect information about where   E Street, between 4th Avenue and 6th 
participants live and work, and their travel  Avenue ‐ 11:30 am to 1:30 pm and 4:30 pm 
patterns to and within Downtown.  to 6:30 pm 

3. Gauge the level of willingness to use (or   Market Street, between 1st Avenue and 5th 
increase the use of) a particular corridor  Avenue ‐ 11:30 am to 1:30 pm and 4:30 pm 
based on a potential design concept.  to 6:30 pm 

4. Gauge the level of acceptance for possible   Broadway, between 1st Avenue and 5th 
trade‐offs to build a potential design  Avenue ‐ 11:30 am to 1:30 pm and 4:30 pm 
concept (e.g., replacing a travel lane or on‐ to 6:30 pm 
street parking with a cycle track).   State Street, between Date Street and A 
5. Explain how participants can stay informed  Street‐ 11:30 am to 1:30 pm and 4:30 pm 
and involved in the planning process.  to 6:30 pm 
   
A copy of each survey form and the survey results 
are provided in Appendix B. 
 
Two roadways targeted through the survey 
outreach, Market Street and Broadway, were 
initially considered for more aggressive multi‐modal 
improvements that would repurpose a vehicle 
travel lane to a cycle track and/or a dedicated bus 
lane.  However, following discussions with 
community members and other key stakeholders 
the multi‐modal improvements were not 
recommended along these corridors.  The 
improvements were included in an alternative 
analysis to allow flexibility in the future should 
community attitudes regarding mobility along these 
corridors change. 
 
   

DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN | 13
CHAPTER 2 | COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

2.3 Community Workshops Workshop #2 Results  
Participants supported the following proposed 
Workshop #1 system alternatives: 
On May 27, 2014, Civic San Diego convened   Retaining Ash/A; F/G; Front/1st, and 
Community Workshop #1 to a) explain the purpose  Grape/Hawthorn as one‐way couplets 
and objectives of the project; b) present findings   Converting 3rd, 8th, 9th and E streets from 
from initial outreach activities completed to date;  one‐way to two‐way streets 
and c) facilitate community input about Downtown 
mobility including visions and primary corridors for   Converting B, C, 6th and 7th streets from 
pedestrians and bicycles.  Approximately 46  one‐way to two‐way streets 
community members attended the workshop.   Creating two‐way cycle tracks on State and 
  Beech streets 
The project team presented findings from initial 
outreach efforts before initiating a discussion with   Creating a couplet of one‐way cycle tracks 
participants about their visions for the future of  on Grape and Hawthorn streets 
Downtown mobility.  Participants then organized   Creating one‐way cycle tracks north of 
into small groups of 5‐8 people led by a facilitator  Broadway on 4th and 5th avenues (either 
for 30 minute discussions regarding a) primary  through loss of a travel lane, or loss of a 
pedestrian and bicycle corridors, and b) important  parking lane 
features and designs for successful corridors.  Two 
representatives from each group provided a brief   Studying continuing facilities on 4th and 5th 
report to the larger group about key discussion  avenues with one‐way cycle track, or 
points.    locating a two‐way cycle track on 6th 
  Avenue  
A summary of the input collected from the first   Studying one‐way cycle tracks or a two‐way 
community workshop is provided in Table 2‐2.  cycle track for Market St; or strengthening 
  the existing bike boulevard on Island 
Workshop #2 Avenue 
On October 7, 2014, Civic San Diego convened   Creating buffered bike lanes on Park Blvd 
Community Workshop #2 to (a.) update the project  north of C Street 
status and latest developments; (b.) present draft   Studying two‐way cycle track or two‐way 
street system and corridor alternatives; and (c.)  side path on Park Blvd between Broadway 
facilitate community input about preferences for  and K Street, or a two‐way cycle track on 
developing the system and alternatives.   13th Street 
Approximately 50 community members attended 
the workshop.  The project team presented the   Creating one‐way cycle‐tracks on Broadway 
latest project developments before initiating a  west of 3rd Avenue and east of Park Blvd 
discussion with participants about their preferences   Creating two‐way cycle‐tracks on Broadway 
for developing a system and alternatives by mode.   between 3rd Avenue and Park Blvd 
Participants reviewed questions and alternatives 
displayed on the presentation screen from the   Creating a network of green streets focused 
project team and provided responses using  on placemaking, traffic calming and bike 
interactive polling technology that shows instant  boulevard designs. 
results.  Project team members also facilitated   
discussions with participants about their   
preferences.   

14 | DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN
CHAPTER 2 | COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

Table 2-2 Community Workshop #1 Input Summary
Visions
All modes are balanced: pedestrian, bicycle, transit, auto.
Destinations are linked through safe connections.
Separated facilities improve safety and comfort, and are continuous.
Existing parking assets are easier to access and well-organized.
Priorities are implemented through short and long term strategies.
The mobility system flows and operates more efficiently.
Visual connectivity provides enhanced wayfinding.
Opportunities
Elevate pedestrian and bicycle modes, reducing demand on parking and auto traffic.
Improve connectivity to surrounding neighborhoods and major destinations, such as the waterfront and Balboa Park.
Translate the green transportation and public realm hierarchy into reality.
Develop connective loops for each mode between destinations.
Integrate innovative public transit enhancements such as technology, fare structures, peak service, and late night services.
Designate flexible/convertible streets where appropriate.
Utilize innovative infrastructure and technologies to enhance functionality and traffic flow such as signals, lighting, bicycle racks, and
more.
Create safer environments through infrastructure improvements: green streets, gathering places, etc.
Develop new models and ideas that can be applied to other communities in the region.
Corridors
Participants identified many priority pedestrian and bicycle corridors through the small group discussions. Following are corridors
identified during the small group reports.
 Pacific Highway and Harbor Drive: Connecting the airport, waterfront, Convention Center, Gaslamp District, Ballpark District,
and Barrio Logan
 C Street: Expanding the functionality and use beyond the trolley, through stronger pedestrian and/or bicycle design elements
 Gaslamp District (4th and 5th Avenues): Creating convertible streets that prioritize pedestrian activity
 Park Boulevard: Strengthening connectivity between Balboa Park and the waterfront, particularly for bicycle and pedestrian
use
 Cedar Street: Improving pedestrian connectivity and safety at the freeway access points
 North and East access points: Creating freeway lids over Interstate 5
 E and F Streets: Improving pedestrian crossings between 9th and 11th Avenues
 J Street and Island Avenue: Strengthening pedestrian and bicycle connections between Marina District and East Village
Design and Amenities
Participants identified a range of design features and amenities that would strengthen pedestrian and bicycle corridors.
 Lighting
 Paving materials and colors, linked to modes
 Trees
 Upright bicycle racks
 Stormwater/water quality infrastructure

DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN | 15
CHAPTER 2 | COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

2.4 Project Website
Civic San Diego maintained an interactive project 
website for community members to engage in the 
project throughout the planning process.  The 
website provided regularly‐updated project 
information including project overview, links to 
related resources, news updates regarding 
community involvement activities, information on 
how to get involved, and web‐based input 
  opportunities.  Community members who signed‐
  up on the website received real‐time email 
notifications when news, public notices and new 
information appeared on the project website. 
 
As part of the first phase of the planning process, 
the project team solicited community input through 
the website from May‐July 2014 regarding existing 
conditions and future vision for mobility in 
Downtown.  Modeling the questions asked at 
Community Workshop #1, the questionnaire 
focused on opportunities, barriers, challenges, 
major destinations to connect, priority modes, 
  priority corridors/streets, and locations for 
  placemaking.  During the second phase of the 
Public Scoping Meeting process, the project team solicited input through a 
detailed questionnaire of system and mode 
In addition to the workshops and outreach, a public  alternatives, which modeled the questions 
Scoping Meeting was held on December 16, 2014.   discussed at Community Workshop #2. 
The meeting, facilitated by Civic San Diego, is   
required by the California Environmental Quality 
Act (CEQA) for projects which may have statewide, 
regional or area‐wide environmental impacts.  The 
meeting included a presentation of the project as 
well as a public comment period for both verbal 
and written public comments on the environmental 
review process or the contents of the 
environmental document.  Due to the focused 
scope of the policy and network improvements 
proposed, a Supplemental EIR is being prepared 
under CEQA Guidelines Section 15163(a).  The 
public comments provide an opportunity for the 
public to assist Civic San Diego and the City of San 
Diego, as the lead agency, to define the scope of 
work for the EIR and include environmental impacts 
for analysis in the project’s environmental 
document.   
   

16 | DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN
CHAPTER 3 | COMPLETE STREETS

3 Complete Streets
 
 
 

THE CALIFORNIA COMPLETE STREETS
ACT (AB 1358)
Commencing January 1, 2011, upon any
substantive revision of the circulation element of the
general plan, modify the circulation element to plan
for a balanced, multimodal transportation
network that meets the needs of all users of
streets, roads, and highways, defined to include
motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, children, persons
with disabilities, seniors, movers of commercial
goods, and users of public transportation, in a
manner that is suitable to the rural, suburban, or
urban context of the general plan.
 
 
Throughout San Diego and cities across the nation, 
people increasingly rely on and expect a variety of 
transportation options.  Decreases in personal 
vehicle commuters, and increases in public 
transportation, walking and bicycling trips are 
 
evidence of this change and put additional pressure   
on local and regional jurisdictions to accommodate  This approach will allow for community members 
these modes through improved infrastructure,  and visitors to enter, exit, and travel within 
service, and supporting policies.  The Complete  Downtown by whichever mode they choose. 
Streets movement is at the heart of this shift.   
  The layered approach, street typologies, Complete 
The Best Complete Streets Policies of 2014  Streets goals and policies, and proposed mobility 
(February, 2015), prepared by Smart Growth  network are presented in the following sections. 
America and the National Complete Streets   
Coalition, concluded that over 70 jurisdictions 
adopted Complete Streets policies in 2014, bringing  3.1 Vision
the nationwide total to 712 jurisdictions with 
Complete Streets policies in place.  The visions for mobility in Downtown express the 
  desired outcome resulting from plan 
The Complete Streets approach presented in the  implementation.  The vision is the target for the 
Mobility Plan provides guidance for developing a  future, or the agreed upon desired end‐state, 
balanced multimodal transportation system  setting the tone for recommendations in the 
through its vision, goals and policies, and proposed  Mobility Plan and defining the scope of goals and 
transportation network.  The network is comprised  policies.   
of multiple layers of roadways that are emphasized   
for a particular mode or purpose.   

DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN | 17
CHAPTER 3 | COMPLETE STREETS

connectivity for every mode, but along slightly 
DOWNTOWN MOBILITY VISION different corridors. 
 
An integrated transportation network of greenways,
The layered network approach prioritizes specific 
sidewalks, bikeways, transit services, roadways and
freeways that provides for the safety of all travelers corridors for specific modes, while allowing for 
– including the elderly, youth and disabled – both travel by the non‐prioritized modes.  The layered 
within Downtown and to surrounding communities. approach takes into consideration transit modes 
It is a transportation network that provides and corridors both within Downtown and to 
convenient access to valuable community adjacent communities.  Figure 3‐1 depicts the 
resources such as employment centers, parks and layering of modal networks to obtain the final 
the waterfront, cultural and entertainment planned network for Downtown.  The various 
attractions, and civic uses. It is a transportation typologies reflected in each network layer to 
network that supports community health and well- achieve a complete network for Downtown are 
being, promotes a strong economy, and also builds presented in Section 3.3. 
social capital.  
  The outcome of the Complete Streets planning 
  process should be well‐connected “layered” 
The vision expressed in the Mobility Plan was  networks for each individual mode across a 
heavily influenced by the following factors:  community, in a manner that minimizes conflicts 
 Recently adopted legislature;  and provides for comfortable and convenient travel 
choices community‐wide. 
 Changes  in  active  travel  and  overall  mode 
shifts; 
 Previous planning  documents including  the  The layered network approach
City  of  San  Diego  General  Plan  and  the  prioritizes specific corridors for
Downtown Community Plan; and 
specific modes, while allowing for
 Staff, TAG & community input.  travel by the non-prioritized modes.
 

3.2 The Layered Network  
Feasibility
Complete Streets is predicated upon the idea that a  One of the overarching themes of this plan’s 
majority of modes should be accommodated along  development revolves around a proposed network 
all roadways.  Another more flexible approach to  that is feasible and constructible.  To achieve this, 
Complete Streets planning is to assess the level of  most improvements are intended to be 
comfort and connectivity for every mode across  implemented within the pavement area between 
community‐wide networks.  In other words, instead  existing curbs to the extent feasible, avoiding 
of balancing every street, we can seek to balance  significant additional costs.  To accommodate the 
travel across a community’s entire network,  various improvements, such as bicycle facilities or 
thereby achieving a “complete network” where all  greenways, a series of roadway alterations are 
modes are able to access necessary opportunities in  proposed for bicycle and pedestrian enhancements 
a convenient manner.  This works especially well in  through lane or road diets in select locations.  
communities that have strong grid networks such as   
Downtown San Diego.  The grid network provides   
for parallel routes to focus or prioritize facilities for   
different modes, and in doing so, providing 

18 | DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN
CHAPTER 3 | COMPLETE STREETS

Figure 3-1 Layered Mobility Network

163
St St
Laurel Laurel

Kalm
ia St 5 Kalm
ia St 5 163
St St
Juniper Juniper

Ivy St Ivy St

St St
thorn thorn
Haw Haw

St St
Grape Grape

St St
W. Fir W. Fir
Elm St Elm St

Date St Date St

Cedar St Cedar St

Beech St Beech St

Seventh Ave

Eighth Ave
Columbia St

Second Ave

Fourth Ave
Kettner Bl

Ninth Ave
Harbor Dr

Sixth Ave
Harbor Dr

Kettner Bl

India St

Columbia St

State St

Union St

Front St

First Ave

Second Ave

Third Ave

Fourth Ave

Fifth Ave

Sixth Ave

Seventh Ave

Fifth Ave
Eighth Ave

Ninth Ave

Union St

First Ave

Third Ave
Front St
State St
India St
Ash St Ash St

A St A St

B St B St

C St C St

Broadway Broadway

E St E St

F St F St

94 94

Eleventh Ave
G St G St

Tenth Ave
Tenth Ave

Eleventh Ave

Park Bl

13th St

14th St

15th St

16th St

17th St

13th St

14th St

15th St

16th St

17th St
Park Bl
Market St Market St

Island Ave Island Ave

J St J St

K St K St

L St

Imperial Ave Imperial Ave

Commercial St
5 Commercial St
5
S a n D i e g o B a y S a n D i e g o B a y

Type of Cycle Track
Greenway
Park 0 0.1
N
0.2 Miles
Two-Way Cycle Track
One-Way Cycle Track 0 0.1
N
0.2 Miles

Greenway Network Cycleway Network

163 163
St St
Laurel Laurel

Kalm
ia St 5 Kalm
ia St 5
St St
Juniper Juniper

Ivy St Ivy St

St St
thorn thorn
Haw Haw

St St
Grape Grape

St St
W. Fir W. Fir
Elm St Elm St

Date St Date St

Cedar St Cedar St

Beech St Beech St
Pacific Hwy
Harbor Dr

Kettner Bl

India St

Columbia St

State St

Union St

Front St

First Ave

Second Ave

Third Ave

Fourth Ave

Fifth Ave

Sixth Ave

Seventh Ave

Pacific Hwy
Harbor Dr

Kettner Bl

India St

Columbia St

State St

Union St

Front St

First Ave

Second Ave

Third Ave

Fourth Ave

Fifth Ave

Sixth Ave

Seventh Ave
Ninth Ave
Eighth Ave

Ninth Ave
Eighth Ave
Ash St Ash St

A St A St

B St B St

C St C St

Broadway Broadway

E St E St

F St F St

94 94
G St G St
Tenth Ave

Tenth Ave

14th St

15th St
Eleventh Ave

Park Bl

13th St

14th St

15th St

16th St

17th St

Eleventh Ave

Park Bl

13th St

16th St

17th St
Market St Market St

Island Ave Island Ave

J St J St

K St K St

L St L St

5
Imperial Ave Imperial Ave

Commercial St
5 Commercial St

S a n D i e g o B a y S a n D i e g o B a y

Transitway 0 0.1
N
0.2 Miles Autoway 0 0.1
N
0.2 Miles

Transitway Network Autoway Network

163
St
Laurel

Kalm
ia St 5
St
Juniper

Ivy St

St
thorn
Haw

St
Grape

St
W. Fir
Elm St

Date St

Cedar St

Beech St
Harbor Dr

Kettner Bl

India St

Columbia St

State St

Union St

Front St

First Ave

Second Ave

Third Ave

Fourth Ave

Fifth Ave

Sixth Ave

Seventh Ave

Eighth Ave

Ninth Ave

Ash St

A St

B St

C St

Broadway

E St

F St

94
G St
Tenth Ave

Eleventh Ave

Park Bl

13th St

14th St

15th St

16th St

17th St

Market St

Island Ave

J St

K St

L St

5
Imperial Ave

Commercial St

S a n D i e g o B a y

Greenway
Cycleway
Transitway
Autoway
Multi-Functional Street 0 0.1
N
0.2 Miles

Layered Mobility Network

DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN | 19
CHAPTER 3 | COMPLETE STREETS

3.3 Street Typologies
Streets are commonly categorized by “functional 
classifications” based on the level of access and 
mobility they provide.  However, the functional 
classification system typically only takes into 
consideration the vehicular network, neglecting 
other modal networks (such as transit and bicycle) 
and surrounding land uses.  Categorizing streets 
using a “typology” system considers the street’s 
locational context and provides a simplified 
planning framework that addresses all modes.  The 
typology system is not intended to replace the 
functional classification, but rather supplement it as 
a guide for designing appropriate streetscape 
environments and supporting high quality travel for 
all modes. 
 
The street typology system is intended to take into 
account the street’s locational context in relation to 
the greater transportation network and to provide a 
framework that addresses all modes.  Each street 
typology represents a “layer” of the mobility 
network, emphasizing specific modes or purposes 
for each Downtown roadway.  Combined, the   
typologies form the Downtown Mobility Network.     
   
Greenways
Greenways prioritize pedestrian travel, but allow 
for automobile, transit and bicycle travel. They are 
intended to showcase landscaping features and 
roadway designs that slow vehicular traffic and 
prioritize walking.  Greenways link Downtown 
parks, the waterfront, and various outdoor 
destinations.  A key feature of greenways is the 
inclusion of enhanced landscaping, including double 
rows of trees, and wide sidewalks with ample public 
amenities.  Greenways provide a necessary respite 
from urban life and allow the Downtown to 
 
‘breathe’.  Greenway in West Sacramento 
   

20 | DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN
CHAPTER 3 | COMPLETE STREETS
 

Cycleways  
 
Cycleways prioritize travel by bike and include 
facility types such as cycle tracks, buffered bicycle 
lanes, and bicycle boulevards.  They are intended to 
showcase high quality, comfortable cycling 
environments with low vehicular travel speeds, 
volumes, and conflicts.  Cars, transit and 
pedestrians will also be accommodated.  The 
Cycleway typology does not identify every existing 
or planned bicycle facility, but rather identifies a 
network of “high‐quality” facilities that are 
physically separated from vehicular traffic or 
provide an increased dedicated right‐of‐way, such 
as buffered bicycle lanes and cycle tracks.   
  Cycleway in Long Beach 
Transitways  

Transitways identify segments where public transit 
takes priority over other modes either through 
transit dedicated corridors, such as the Green Line 
corridor; a wider dedicated right‐of‐way, such as C 
Street west of Park Boulevard or Park Boulevard 
south of Broadway; or transit prioritized 
signalization, such as Broadway.  Vehicular traffic, 
bicycles and pedestrians may also be 
accommodated on these roadways.  Additionally, 
the pedestrian environment requires increased 
attention along Transitways, especially near transit 
stops, to improve user safety and encourage 
 
ridership.  Downtown Transitway (Green Line) 
   
Autoways  
Autoways include roadways that primarily facilitate 
vehicular movement.  Autoways are generally 
identified in pairs, or couplets, due to the one‐way 
movements along many Downtown streets.  These 
roadways provide connections to the regional 
freeway network or adjacent communities.  Traffic 
signals are synchronized to allow for optimal 
vehicular movement. 
 

Autoway on G Street in Downtown San Diego 
   

DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN | 21
CHAPTER 3 | COMPLETE STREETS

Multi-Functional Streets
Multi‐Functional Streets serve a variety of purposes 
and do not emphasize any single mode.  These 
streets provide access within neighborhoods and 
generally experience relatively lower vehicular 
volumes. Like all Downtown streets, the pedestrian 
environment and pedestrian safety is of great 
significance. 
 

3.4 Mode Share
Mode share is a good measure to evaluate how   Multi‐Functional Street on Third Avenue 
successful a transportation system is.  SANDAG’s   
Trip Generation for Smart Growth Tool (MXD) and a  share could be achieved for Downtown with 
customized bicycle model developed by Cambridge  significant increases in active transportation 
Systematics were employed to estimate the mode  (walking and biking) percentage (from 28% to 43%) 
share for the buildout of Downtown land uses on  and moderate increases in transit percentage (from 
the proposed layered mobility system.  The charts  6% to 11%).  As a result, the auto percentage would 
below indicate that a much more balanced mode  decrease from (66% to 46%). 
 
 
 

 
 
 

22 | DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN
CHAPTER 3 | COMPLETE STREETS
 

any and all existing planning documents 
3.5 Goals & Policies pertaining to Downtown including the 
AASHTO Green Book; AASHTO Guide for 
Complete Streets Goals the Development of Bicycle Facilities; ITE 
Designing Walkable Urban 
CS‐G‐1  A Downtown transportation network that 
Thoroughfares: A Context Sensitive 
accommodates all users including 
Approach; NACTO Urban Bikeway Design 
pedestrians, cyclists, drivers, and transit 
Guide; Manual on Uniform Traffic Control 
users of all ages and abilities, children, 
Devices; and the US Access Board Public 
the elderly and the disabled, as well as 
Right‐of‐Way Accessibility Guidelines.  
trucks and vehicles. 
When fulfilling this Complete Streets 
 
policy, the City of San Diego will follow 
CS‐G‐2  A Downtown transportation network that 
the design manuals, standards and 
prioritizes specific modes for specific 
guidelines listed above, as applicable, but 
roadways and functions as an integrated 
should not be precluded from 
and “complete” network where all users 
considering innovative or non‐traditional 
can travel and enjoy the public rights‐of‐
design options where a comparable level 
way in safety and comfort. 
of safety for users is provided. 
 
 
Complete Streets Policies
CS‐P‐5  Measure the success of Complete Streets 
CS‐P‐1  Create a layered network of priority  policy implementation using performance 
corridors unique to walking, cycling,  measures such as the following:  
transit, and driving.   Total miles of quality bike facility 
  (Class I, II, and IV); 
CS‐P‐2  Design, operate and maintain a 
 Linear feet of new quality 
transportation network that provides a 
pedestrian accommodation; 
connected network of facilities 
accommodating all modes of travel.  Seek   Number of new curb ramps 
out opportunities to repurpose rights‐of‐ installed along city streets; 
way to enhance connectivity for   Crosswalk and intersection 
pedestrians, bicyclists and transit users.  improvements; 
   Rate of crashes, injuries and 
CS‐P‐3  Work with the County of San Diego, the  fatalities by mode (especially 
San Diego Unified Port District, the San  around transit stops); 
Diego Regional Airport Authority, MTS,   Rates of pedestrian and bicycle 
and SANDAG to ensure Complete Streets  activity at key locations that have 
principles are incorporated in a context‐ been identified during the existing 
sensitive manner.  conditions process; and 
 
 Benchmarking these performance 
CS‐P‐4  Develop and adopt inter‐departmental 
measures will take place pending 
policies on Complete Streets, such as 
staff and funding availability and 
urban design guidelines, zoning and 
will be reported to the San Diego 
performance standards and other 
community at large with the 
guidelines based upon best practices 
intention of achieving 
resources in urban design and street 
accountability for implementation. 
design, construction, operations and 
 
maintenance.   These best practices 
resources include, but are not limited to, 

DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN | 23
CHAPTER 3 | COMPLETE STREETS

CS‐P‐6  Take steps to ensure implementation,  Street Transitway to access the Blue Line or Orange 
such as the following:  Line.  
 Restructure or revise related   
procedures, plans, regulations, and  One overarching approach to ensure the design of a 
other processes to accommodate  feasible transportation system is to repurpose and 
all travelers and users of the  reconfigure the current roadway pavement and 
roadway on future projects;  right‐of‐way by converting the excess auto capacity 
to accommodate the other travel modes and on‐
 Develop new design policies and 
street parking.  A system‐wide traffic operational 
guides or revise existing to reflect 
analysis was conducted to determine which 
the current state of best practices 
Downtown streets have excess capacity and where 
in transportation design.  
an auto travel lane may be removed to 
Communities may also elect to 
accommodate a greenway, a separated bicycle 
adopt national or state level 
facility, or angled (from parallel) on‐street parking 
recognized design guidance; 
to off‐set the potential parking losses associated 
 Offer workshops and other training  with the implementation of cycle tracks and 
opportunities to transportation  greenways. 
staff, community leaders, and the   
general public so that everyone  Figure 3‐3 displays the Mobility Plan Complete 
understands the importance of the  Streets recommendations, including the Cycleways 
Complete Streets vision; and  network, Greenways network, and locations where 
 Develop and institute better ways  increased on‐street parking can be achieved. 
to measure performance and   
collect data on how well the streets  Figure 3‐4 illustrates road diets and vehicular road 
are serving all users.  closures within Downtown to accommodate 
  Complete Streets implementation.  The road diets 
and road closures are described in greater detail in 
3.6 Complete Streets Chapter 7. 
Recommendations  
Greenways serve to enhance the pedestrian 
Figure 3‐2 presents the planned Downtown Mobility  environment along key corridors that connect to 
Network, identifying the four street typologies  public park spaces.  Greenways supplement the 
presented in this Chapter.  As shown, each network  existing network of sidewalks present along nearly 
is intended to provide movement within the  every Downtown street, with an improved 
community, allowing community members and  pedestrian experience supported by landscaping, 
visitors to traverse Downtown north‐south or east‐ lighting, and other location specific features.  
west by any mode.  The networks were largely  Greenways will connect to existing and planned 
developed parallel and in close proximity to one  public open spaces such as Balboa Park, Waterfront 
another, generally offering an emphasized roadway  Park, and the Fault Line Park. 
for each mode within each Downtown   
neighborhood.   The Cycleway network was developed to improve 
  bicycle access to and from the community, as well 
This approach is intended to provide multimodal  as improved internal mobility.  Upon full network 
choices throughout the community.  Additionally,  buildout, Cycleways will provide access to key 
the network allows for extensive multimodal travel  Downtown destinations such as the Civic Center, 
through intersecting networks, for example, a  Convention Center, major public transit stations, 
pedestrian in Cortez Hill may walk southerly along  Petco Park, the waterfront, and all Downtown 
the Eighth Avenue Greenway to arrive at the C  neighborhoods.

24 | DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN
CHAPTER 3 | COMPLETE STREETS

Figure 3-2 Planned Downtown Mobility Network

l St
Laure 163
Kalm
ia St 5
er St
Junip

t
Ivy S

St
thorn
Haw

e St
Grap

S t
W. Fir
Elm St

Date St

Cedar St

Beech St
Harbor Dr

Kettner Bl

India St

Columbia St

State St

Union St

Front St

First Ave

Second Ave

Third Ave

Fourth Ave

Fifth Ave

Sixth Ave

Seventh Ave

Eighth Ave

Ninth Ave
Ash St

A St

B St

C St

Broadway

E St

F St

94
G St
Tenth Ave

Eleventh Ave

Park Bl

13th St

14th St

15th St

16th St

17th St
Market St

Island Ave

J St

K St

L St

5
Imperial Ave

Commercial St

S a n D i e g o B a y

Greenway
Cycleway
Transitway
Autoway
Multi-Functional Street 0 0.1
N
0.2 Miles

DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN | 25
CHAPTER 3 | COMPLETE STREETS

Figure 3-3 Complete Streets Recommendations

l St
Laure 163
Kalm
ia St 5
er St
Junip

t
Ivy S

St
thorn
Haw

e St
Grap

S t
W. Fir
Elm St

Date St

Cedar St

Beech St
Harbor Dr

Kettner Bl

India St

Columbia St

State St

Union St

Front St

First Ave

Second Ave

Third Ave

Fourth Ave

Fifth Ave

Sixth Ave

Seventh Ave

Eighth Ave

Ninth Ave
Ash St

A St

B St

C St

Broadway

E St

F St

94
G St
Tenth Ave

Eleventh Ave

Park Bl

13th St

14th St

15th St

16th St

17th St
Market St

Island Ave

J St

K St

L St

Imperial Ave

Commercial St
5
S a n D i e g o B a y

Park
Complete Streets Recommendations
Increased On Street Parking

N
Two-Way Cycle Track
One-Way Cycle Track
Greenway 0 0.1 0.2 Miles

26 | DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN
CHAPTER 3 | COMPLETE STREETS

Figure 3-4 Road Diets Accommodating Complete Streets

l St
Laure

Kalm
ia St 5
er St
Junip

Ivy S
t 163
St
thorn
Haw

e St
Grap

S t
W. Fir
Elm St

Date St

Cedar St

Beech St

Seventh Ave
Columbia St

Second Ave

Eighth Ave
Fourth Ave
Kettner Bl

Ninth Ave
Harbor Dr

Third Ave

Sixth Ave
Fifth Ave
Union St

First Ave
Front St
State St
India St

Ash St

A St

B St

C St

Broadway

E St

F St

94
G St
Eleventh Ave
Tenth Ave

16th St

17th St
13th St

14th St

15th St
Park Bl
Market St

Island Ave

J St

K St

L St

Imperial Ave

Commercial St
5
S a n D i e g o B a y

Proposed Road Diets
Proposed Road Closure to Vehicular Travel 0 0.1
N
0.2 Miles

DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN | 27
CHAPTER 3 | COMPLETE STREETS

Cycleways will also provide connections to the  Autoways include roadways that connect to the 
surrounding Uptown, Southeastern San Diego, and  regional freeway network.  Other modes, such as 
Golden Hill communities.  pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit, use autoways, 
  however, these roadways include some of the 
The Transitways network portrays corridors with  highest vehicular volumes in the community and 
multiple public transit routes, as well as high quality  are intended to maximize vehicular efficiency. 
transit offerings such as the trolley network and   
Express bus lines.  Transitways display connections  Table 3‐1 displays the network miles for each street 
to important mobility locations such as the Santa Fe  typology.  As shown, the street typologies range 
Depot, the 12th and Imperial Transit Center, and the  from approximately 9% to 23% of total network 
City College Trolley Station.  Both the Greenways  miles, with the exception of the multi‐functional or 
and Cycleways networks intersect with Transitways  non‐designated streets. 
in multiple locations, providing emphasized non‐  
motorized transportation connections to the public   
transit system.   
 
 
 
Table 3-1 Network Miles by Street Typology
Street Typology1 Network Miles % of Total Network Miles
Greenways 5.5 9.8%
Cycleways 9.3 16.5%
Transitways 6.8 12.1%
Autoways 12.9 23.0%
Multi-Functional Streets 21.7 38.6%
 
Notes: 
1. Some roadway segments have multiple typology designations. 
 
 

28 | DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN
CHAPTER 4 | PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT

4 Pedestrian Movement
 
 
 
Every trip begins and ends with walking.  To reach a 
transit stop, a bike, or a car, one must walk.  
Pedestrian comfort and safety is critical to achieving 
a balanced, multimodal transportation system.  
Improving pedestrian mobility indirectly improves 
the environment for bicyclists, transit riders, as well 
as vehicle driver’s safety.  Walking as a means of 
transportation is prevalent in Downtown – nearly 1 
in 6 of the community’s residents walk to work. 
 
The City of San Diego General Plan includes the City 
of Villages strategy which aims to focus growth into 
mixed‐use activity centers that are pedestrian‐
friendly districts linked to an improved regional 
transit system.  General Plan policies ME‐A.1 
through ME‐A.9, and Table ME‐1 (Pedestrian 
Improvement Toolbox), and Table ME‐2 (Traffic   
 
Calming Toolbox), as well as the goals and policies 
Downtown Mobility Existing Conditions Report and 
presented in this Chapter should be considered 
the Technical Report.  High pedestrian need areas 
when evaluating and implementing pedestrian 
were identified through an assessment of walking 
mobility improvements. 
demands, pedestrian collisions, and network 
 
characteristics.  Pedestrian plan proposals were 
4.1 Existing Conditions developed in part by assessing and addressing 
these areas.   
The pedestrian environment in Downtown benefits   
greatly from the strong grid network and diverse  Existing pedestrian activity in Downtown is 
mix of concentrated land uses.  Walking for inter‐ influenced by the time of day.  During the morning 
neighborhood travel within Downtown is a viable  peak period, relatively higher pedestrian volumes 
mode of transportation, often faster than public  were observed in the Civic/Core neighborhood and 
transit.  However, pedestrian safety and comfort is  surrounding area, reflecting the high concentration 
problematic in several locations, especially near  of employment opportunities.  In the evening, 
freeway on/off ramps.  Furthermore, walking is a  higher pedestrian activity was found in the Gaslamp 
means to reach transit services, underscoring the  Quarter and adjacent East Village neighborhoods, 
importance of strengthening the pedestrian  and along Harbor Drive, where there are 
environment near major transit stops and along  concentrated recreational, entertainment, retail 
transit corridors.  and dinning opportunities.  
   
Figure 4‐1 displays identified pedestrian needs  The three highest combined AM and PM peak 
within Downtown, as discussed in the 2014   period pedestrian volume study intersections were 
found along Market Street at the intersections of 
Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Avenues. 

DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN | 29
CHAPTER 4 | PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT

Figure 4-1 Pedestrian Needs

Pedestrian Needs
Freeway Ramp
l St
Laure
High Collision Area
ia St 5
Kalm Barrier to Pedestrian Travel
er St High Pedestrian Demands
Junip

Ivy S
t Transit Center
St
thorn
Haw

e St
163
Grap

S t
W. Fir
Elm St

Date St

Cedar St

Beech St

Seventh Ave

Eighth Ave
Columbia St

Second Ave

Fourth Ave
Kettner Bl

Ninth Ave
Harbor Dr

Third Ave

Sixth Ave
Fifth Ave
Union St

First Ave
Front St
State St
India St

Ash St

A St

B St

C St

Broadway

E St

F St

94
G St
Eleventh Ave
Tenth Ave

16th St

17th St
13th St

14th St

15th St
Park Bl
Market St

Island Ave

J St

K St

L St

Imperial Ave

Commercial St
5
S a n D i e g o B a y

N
0 0.1 0.2 Miles
75

30 | DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN
CHAPTER 4 | PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT

Pedestrian safety is of great concern in the  PM‐G‐3  Safe, walkable neighborhoods with 
Horton/Gaslamp and Civic/Core neighborhoods,  improved street crossings, sidewalks and 
where high concentrations of pedestrian collisions  pedestrian amenities, with additional 
were recorded (2008 – 2013) combined with  consideration placed on identified high 
relatively high observed pedestrian volumes.   collision areas. 
Additionally, the upper East Village area near San   
Diego High School and San Diego City College  PM‐G‐4  A network of greenways that provides a 
experienced a disproportionate share of pedestrian  natural respite for Downtown residents, 
collisions.  employees and visitors, and allows for 
  calm travel along greened corridors. 
The Interstate 5, SR‐163, and SR‐94 freeway on/off‐  
ramps pose barriers and safety concerns related to  PM‐G‐5  Eliminate traffic deaths and serious 
pedestrian mobility.  Ramps are often uncontrolled,  injuries in Downtown San Diego by 2025, 
creating a scenario where unrestricted vehicles may  consistent with the Vision Zero resolution 
be accelerating or decelerating when pedestrians  adopted by City Council in October 2015. 
are attempting to cross.  Interstate 5 also divides   
Downtown from the adjacent communities of  Pedestrian Policies
Uptown, Greater Golden Hill, and Southeastern San 
Diego.  Pedestrian connections to these  PM‐P‐1  Throughout the entire Downtown San 
neighboring communities are reached by traversing  Diego community:  
a combination of generally uninviting over‐ and   Undertake strategic streetscape 
underpasses and freeway ramps.  improvements (such as sidewalk 
  widening, bulb‐outs, enhanced 
In terms of existing pedestrian facility deficiencies,  lighting and signage); 
there are several incidences of non‐ADA compliant   Lengthen traffic signal walk times 
existing intersection curb ramps, missing curb  for pedestrians, and explore the 
ramps and missing sidewalk segments.  Missing  feasibility of “all walk” signalization 
sidewalk segments within the study area are found  at intersections with heavy 
along the rail corridor through Little Italy, the  pedestrian demands, where 
southern end of Park Boulevard, and portions of  needed; and 
17th Street.   Accept lower levels of automobile 
  traffic level of service at 
intersection locations across 
4.2 Goals & Policies Downtown along Greenways and 
Cycleways. 
Pedestrian Goals
 Prioritize safety improvements in 
PM‐G‐1  A cohesive and attractive walking and  high collision areas. 
bicycle system within Downtown that   
provides linkages within the area and to  PM‐P‐2  Designate specific enhanced pedestrian 
surrounding neighborhoods and public  improvements on certain “pedestrian 
transit services.  prioritized” streets, including but not 
  limited to, widened sidewalks, corner 
PM‐G‐2  Mixed‐use neighborhoods, with open  bulb‐outs that reduce pedestrian crossing 
spaces, services, and retail businesses  distances, and linear park promenades. 
within convenient walking distance of   
residents, to maximize opportunities for  PM‐P‐3  Install missing sidewalks and improve all 
walking.  curb ramps to be ADA compliant. 

DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN | 31
CHAPTER 4 | PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT

PM‐P‐4  Provide marked crosswalks and  Figure 4‐2 displays the planned Greenways along 
pedestrian countdown signals at all  with existing and planned park space. 
signalized intersections.   
  Figure 4‐3 displays a conceptual cross‐section of a 
PM‐P‐5  Take necessary funding and regulatory  Greenway together with the plan view and photo 
steps to build greenways identified in the  simulation of the implementation of a Greenway 
planned Downtown Mobility Network.  along 14th Street.  Greenways will include defining 
  features such as expanded pedestrian areas and 
PM‐P‐6  Collaborate with Caltrans to enhance  increased landscaping. 
safety and aesthetics at freeway ramps.   
 

4.3 Pedestrian
Recommendations
Every street is intended to provide for comfortable 
and safe pedestrian travel.  To further improve the 
pedestrian environment this Mobility Plan proposes 
a system of Greenways along select corridors, 
linking to existing and planned parks and improving 
connections to adjacent communities, as well as the 
waterfront. 
 
Greenways are sidewalks that can serve as linear   
High visibility crosswalks emphasize pedestrian crossing areas 
parks, providing needed open space.  Greenways 
throughout Downtown San Diego. 
will be designed individually within the available 
 
public right‐of‐way, but all will help create streets 
that are more pedestrian oriented with prominent 
landscaping and expanded sidewalk widths.  A 
uniform set of street furnishing (benches, trash 
cans, street lighting, tree grates, and signage) 
should be present along these pedestrian corridors 
to differentiate them from other streets. 
 

Every street is intended to provide
for comfortable and safe pedestrian
travel.

Curb bulb‐outs should be present at intersections 
to help calm traffic and shorten crossing distances.  
Additional features may include dog parks, picnic 
areas, unique mini‐parks, public plazas or other 
areas for relaxing and socializing.   
  Wayfinding signs can benefit pedestrians, transit users, cyclists, 
and drivers. 

32 | DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN
CHAPTER 4 | PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT

Figure 4-2 Proposed Greenways

l St
Laure 163
Kalm
ia St 5
er St
Junip

t
Ivy S

St
thorn
Haw

e St
Grap

S t
W. Fir
Elm St

Date St

Cedar St

Beech St
Harbor Dr

Kettner Bl

India St

Columbia St

State St

Union St

Front St

First Ave

Second Ave

Third Ave

Fourth Ave

Fifth Ave

Sixth Ave

Seventh Ave

Eighth Ave

Ninth Ave
Ash St

A St

B St

C St

Broadway

E St

F St

94
G St
Tenth Ave

Eleventh Ave

Park Bl

13th St

14th St

15th St

16th St

17th St
Market St

Island Ave

J St

K St

L St

Imperial Ave

Commercial St
5
S a n D i e g o B a y

Greenway
Park 0 0.1
N
0.2 Miles

DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN | 33
CHAPTER 4 | PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT

Figure 4-3 Typical Greenway Concept

 
Typical Greenway Cross-Section
 
 
 
 

 
Sample Greenway Plan View Layout
(14th Street between Market Street and G Street)
 
 
 
 
Note that cross‐section and conceptual plan illustrations are provided to demonstrate general feasibility of the subject proposal only. 
Actual improvements will require additional engineering studies and design work and shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 
   

34 | DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN
CHAPTER 4 | PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT

Figure 4-3 Typical Greenway Concept (cont.)

 
Existing Streetscape – 14th Street between Market Street and G Street
(Looking North)

Proposed Streetscape – 14th Street between Market Street and G Street
(Looking North)
Note that cross‐section and conceptual plan illustrations are provided to demonstrate general feasibility of the subject proposal only. 
Actual improvements will require additional engineering studies and design work and shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 

DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN | 35
CHAPTER 4 | PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT

As shown, the Greenways will provide a network of  removal on the east side of the street will 
linear parks and pedestrian promenades traversing  be required.   
the community from north to south and east to   
west, connecting to Downtown’s existing and  14th Street 
planned open spaces such as Amici Park, Children’s 
Park, Children’s Museum Park, Civic Square, Cortez  This Greenway will connect City College at 
Hill Park, County Administration Waterfront Park,  its northern end with Barrio Logan to the 
East Village Green, Fault Line Park, Horton Plaza  south, as it traverses through the future 
park, North central Square, and Outfield Park at  East Village Green park and adjacent to the 
Petco Park.  All of these streets were identified in  recently completed Fault Line Park.  The 
the Downtown Community Plan as “green streets”.  northern and southern ends of the street 
  currently pass through largely 
underdeveloped sections of East Village, 
providing the opportunity for the 
Greenways will provide a network of construction of the Greenway in phases 
linear parks and pedestrian with adjacent public and private 
promenades traversing the community developments.  The public and major 
from north to south and east west. property owners along this corridor have 
expressed major interest in the 
  development of this Greenway as a prime 
The seven Greenways, and a summary of the  example for the re‐purposing of excess 
individual opportunities and challenges for  public rights‐of‐way.  The removal of the 
implementing, include the following:  third travel lane, where it exists, and the 
  parking lane along the east side of the 
street will be required.  
Eighth Avenue
 
This Greenway will connect the Cortez Hill  Cedar Street 
neighborhood and park at its northern end 
to Petco Park to the south, traversing  This Greenway will connect Cortez Hill with 
through the eastern end of the historic  Little Italy and the County of San Diego 
financial district and the northwest  Waterfront Park and San Diego Bay.  The 
quadrant of the East Village neighborhood.   main impediment is the Interstate 5 SB‐Off 
The creation of this Greenway will connect  Ramp at Second Avenue, which the 
these two key neighborhoods and open  Downtown Community Plan recommends 
spaces, as well as the two future open  for removal to allow this street to once 
spaces of the North Central Square at C  again connect these neighborhoods.  As 
Street and the Post Office Square at F  this street currently traverses the Little Italy 
Street.  The existing roadway configuration  neighborhood, there are building setbacks 
provides one‐way southbound vehicular  west of India Street to provide enhanced 
travel between Ash and G streets, with two‐ views of the County Administration Center 
way traffic at its southern end.  Existing and  and San Diego Bay.  Long envisioned as a 
future vehicular volumes permit the  landmark pedestrian corridor connecting to 
removal of one travel lane and converting  the waterfront, there are opportunities for 
the entire roadway to allow two‐way travel.   the creation of plazas and piazzas 
The road diet will provide some of the  consistent with recent improvements 
required right‐of‐way to implement the  within the Little Italy neighborhood. 
proposed Greenway; however, parking   
   

36 | DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN
CHAPTER 4 | PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT

E Street  Sixth Avenue
This Greenway connects the new Horton  A Greenway should be designed and 
Plaza Park and Gaslamp Quarter with the  constructed along Sixth Avenue between 
northeast quadrant of the East Village and  Cedar and Elm streets to connect 
will provide a respite between the auto and  Downtown to Balboa Park.  This can be 
transit corridors of Broadway and F and G  accomplished by eliminating the free left‐
streets.  Similar to 14th Street, there are  turn movement from the I‐5 off‐ramp onto 
opportunities for phased construction with  southbound Sixth Avenue (requires further 
new development through the northeast  study and reconfiguration of the Sixth 
East Village.  Currently a mix of one‐way  Avenue/Elm Street intersection) and 
and two‐way configurations, the street will  converting a travel lane and the parking on 
be converted to one travel lane in each  the east side of the bridge into an 
direction with the removal of the parking  enhanced, landscaped pedestrian walkway.  
lane along the north side to maximize sun  Civic San Diego was awarded a TransNet 
exposure along a landscaped corridor.  Smart Growth Incentive Program Grant 
    complete a Feasibility Study and 
Island Avenue Conceptual Design for this Greenway, also 
referred to as the Sixth Avenue Bridge 
Over the past 15 years, sidewalk widening  Promenade.  This project is supported by a 
projects have created a pedestrian oriented  variety of community groups from the 
street with enhanced brick and exposed  Downtown and Uptown communities. 
aggregate paving and bulb‐outs at most   
intersections.  This traffic‐calmed street is a 
respite between the more commercialized 
Market and J Street corridors and can be 
further enhanced through additional 
plantings, including potted plants and 
hanging plants.   
 
Union Street
This Greenway can be a major pedestrian   
Greenways provide room for landscaping and other pedestrian 
corridor between the Marina and Little Italy  amenities such as seating. 
neighborhoods along the west side of   
Downtown, connecting Children’s Museum  Pedestrian Amenities
Park and the Martin Luther King 
Promenade at its southern end to Amici  A pedestrian’s perception of the roadway 
Park at its northern end.  While it currently  environment is influenced not only by the presence 
traverses the government‐use oriented  and quality of the facility, such as a sidewalk or 
Civic Core neighborhood that exhibits little  street crossing, but also by pedestrian amenities, 
activity in the evenings, enhanced  lighting, traffic calming features, traffic speeds and 
landscaping and traffic‐calming are  volumes, and adjacent buildings.  Where feasible 
envisioned in order to provide more  and appropriate, widened sidewalks and landscape 
pedestrian interest through this  features can serve as a buffer between pedestrians 
neighborhood and along the future Civic  and vehicular traffic.  Adequate pedestrian lighting 
Square Park.  should be provided throughout the community to 
  increase pedestrian safety and comfort. 
 

DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN | 37
CHAPTER 4 | PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT

High Pedestrian Volume Crossing
Locations
In areas of relatively higher pedestrian demand, 
consideration should be given to increasing the 
pedestrian crossing phase and exploring the 
potential of “all walk” signalization (pedestrian 
scrambles), like the intersection of Fifth Avenue and 
Market Street. 
 
Wayfinding Sign Program
Wayfinding signage in Downtown has recently been 
updated to improve visibility and guidance in a way 
that enhances the visitor’s experience navigating 
through Downtown, addressing walking, cycling, 
efficient vehicle use and parking.  The wayfinding 
signage program serves to help connect visitors to 
popular destinations, including waterfront parks 
and marinas, cruise ship terminals, the Gaslamp 
Quarter, Little Italy, Petco Park, East Village, Horton   
Wayfinding Sign on First Avenue directs users towards Horton 
Plaza and Balboa Park.   Plaza, Gaslamp Quarter, Petco Park, and other Downtown 
destinations. 
 

38 | DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN
CHAPTER 5 | BICYCLING
 

5 Bicycling
 
 
 
Bicycling in Downtown is more accessible than ever.  
In the fall of 2014 the City of San Diego launched 
the Deco Bike bicycle sharing program to make 180 
stations and 1,800 bikes available to the public.  
Over 40 of these stations are located in Downtown, 
making bicycles available to all residents, workers, 
and visitors. 
 
Downtown’s growing residential and employment 
populations will create more inter‐neighborhood 
travel, leading to more pedestrians and cyclists.  
Expansion of the bicycle network and bicycle 
parking will help encourage use and ensure a safe 
and convenient cycling environment for cyclists of 
all ages and skill levels. 
 
General Plan policies ME‐F.1 through ME‐F.6, as 
well as the goals and policies presented in this 
 
Chapter, should be considered when evaluating  A bicyclist passes San Diego High School on the Park Boulevard 
bicycle mobility and future improvement projects.  bike lane. 
   
This plan proposes significant improvements to the 
5.1 Existing Conditions cycling environment Downtown as a way to unleash 
the latent demand for non‐motorized trip‐making, 
Existing bicycle facilities in Downtown are currently  especially for short trips.   
located along the community boundaries.    
However, no facility, east‐west or north‐south,  Figure 5‐1 displays identified cycling needs in 
traverses the center of Downtown.  The network is  Downtown, highlighting areas of relatively high 
predominantly characterized by Class III bicycle  demand and high deficiency.  High demand is 
routes, with additional separated facilities running  evaluated through observed bicycle volumes, 
along the western‐ and southern‐most boundaries.   collected in support of this project, as well as 
The weak grid of bicycle network highlights the  through the Bicycling Propensity Model developed 
need to improve Downtown bicycle connections.  for the San Diego Regional Bike Plan.  High 
  deficiency is evaluated through bicycle network 
Like walking, bicycling benefits from Downtown’s  gaps and bicycle‐involved collision locations.  
gridded street pattern, and is a very convenient  Relatively higher cycling demands are present along 
means of transportation for trips up to 3 miles in  Market Street and Broadway, specifically through 
length.  A person travelling in Downtown by bicycle  the center of Downtown where there is currently 
can cover a greater distance in a shorter period of  no existing facility, as well as at intersections along 
time than by walking or taking transit.   16th Street, Harbor Drive, and the lower East Village 
Area. 

DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN | 39
CHAPTER 5 | BICYCLING

Figure 5-1 Bicycle Needs

l St
Laure

Kalm
ia St 5
er St
Junip

t
Ivy S

St
thorn
Haw

e St
Grap

S t
W. Fir
Elm St

Date St

Cedar St

Beech St

Seventh Ave
Columbia St

Second Ave

Fourth Ave
Kettner Bl

Eighth Ave

Ninth Ave
Harbor Dr

Third Ave

Sixth Ave
Fifth Ave
Union St

First Ave
Front St
State St
India St

Ash St

A St

B St

C St

Broadway

E St

F St

94
G St
Eleventh Ave
Tenth Ave

16th St

17th St
13th St

14th St

15th St
Park Bl
Market St

Island Ave

J St

K St

L St

Imperial Ave

Commercial St
5

Bicycle Needs
Freeway Ramp
High Collision Area S a n D i e g o B a y
Barrier to Bicycle Travel
High Bicycle Demands
Transit Center

Existing Bicycle Facilities

N N
Class I - Bike Path
Class II - Bike Lane
0 0.1Class0.2
IIIMiles
- Bike Route 0 0.1 0.2 Miles

Downtown San Diego Mobility Plan Figure 5-1
Bicycle Needs
40 | DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN
CHAPTER 5 | BICYCLING
 

Bicycling Policies
B‐P‐1  Create a well‐connected network of 
Cycleways, as shown in Figure 6‐2, and 
encourage linkages to regional bicycle 
corridors, including the Bayshore Bikeway, 
Central Coast Corridor, Centre City‐La Mesa 
Corridor, Clairemont‐Centre City Corridor, 
Coastal Rail Trail, North Park‐Centre City 
Corridor, and the Park Boulevard 
Connector, as designated in the San Diego 
Regional Bike Plan. 
   
One‐Way Cycle Track in Long Beach, CA. 
  B‐P‐2  Require bike racks and/or lockers in all 
Similar to pedestrian mobility, the Interstate 5  residential projects, multi‐tenant retail and 
poses a barrier to cyclists, as do the on‐/off‐ramps  office projects, and government and 
at SR‐94 and SR‐163.  Intersections with historically  institutional uses. 
higher frequency of bicycle involved collisions   
include Park Boulevard and Russ Boulevard, 16th  B‐P‐3  Provide a range of alternative bicycle 
Street and Broadway, 16th Street and Market Street,  improvements throughout Downtown. 
and Fourth Avenue and Cedar Street.   
  B‐P‐4  Connect Downtown’s Cycleways with 
Similar to the pedestrian collision patterns, several  surrounding communities, the waterfront 
bicycle collisions were recorded near San Diego  and Port District tidelands, and transit 
High School and San Diego City College.  This area  facilities to encourage everyday commute 
also shows relatively high total transit boardings  and recreational bicycle trips within the 
(passengers getting on the bus) and alightings  region. 
(passengers getting off the bus) indicating that   
improvements to cycling and walking environments  B‐P‐5  Support future exploration of cycle track 
here can also benefit transit users.  implementation along the length of Market 
  Street and Broadway within the Downtown 
community to provide a direct east‐west 
5.2 Goals & Policies bicycle connection. 
 
Bicycling Goals
B‐G‐1  A cohesive and well connected bicycle 
system within Downtown that provides 
linkages within the area and to surrounding 
neighborhoods, including the waterfront 
and Port District tidelands. 
 
B‐G‐2  A community where bicycling is a viable and 
appealing travel choice for people of all 
ages and skill levels. 
   
B‐G‐3  Increased bicycle commute mode share for  Bike parking is an important, yet often overlooked, bicycle 
Downtown residents.  network component. 
   

DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN | 41
CHAPTER 5 | BICYCLING

5.3 Bicycle  

Recommendations The protected bicycle facilities will
The proposed bicycle network addresses the  provide an increased level of safety
current lack of connectivity through the center of  and comfort for cyclists.
Downtown, as well as the lack of safe facilities 
traversing the community.     
 
Figure 5‐2 presents the proposed bicycle network.  
As shown, the network is comprised of all four 
bicycle facility classification standardized by 
Caltrans, including Bike Path, Bike Lane, Bike Route, 
and Cycle Track.  Figure 5‐3 displays typical 
Cycleway cross‐sections of one‐way and two‐way 
cycle tracks.   
 
Figure 5‐4 presents plan view and photo simulation 
of the implementation of the two‐way cycle track 
along J Street.  A plan‐view and photo simulation of 
cycle‐track crossing another cycle‐track (the 
intersection of State Street and Beech Street) is 
displayed in Figure 5‐5. 
 
Table 5‐1 provides a description and image for each 
classification.   
 
 
Recognizing the relatively high volume of vehicles   
that circulate in Downtown, the proposed bicycle 
network relies heavily on protected bicycle facilities 
such as cycle tracks and multi‐use paths which 
provide physical separation between vehicular 
traffic and cyclists.  The protected bicycle facilities 
will provide an increased level of safety and 
comfort for cyclists, which may increase overall 
cycling levels, decrease the amount of cyclists riding 
on the sidewalk, and decrease conflicts with 
vehicles.  One year following the installation of a 
cycle track on 3rd Street in Long Beach, CA the 
following results were drawn: 
 33% increase in bicycle volume 
 85th percentile traffic speeds dropped from 
36 to 27 MPH 
 50% decrease in bicycle‐related accidents 
 23% decrease in all vehicle accidents   
Two‐Way Cycle Track in Washington D.C. (Top). One‐Way Cycle 
Track in Washington D.C. (Bottom). 

42 | DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN
" " " "
Status
" "

"
Figure 5-2

"

S a n
" "

Classifications
"

"
"

"
"

"
"

"
"

"
"
"

Class I - Bike Path
"
"

"

Class II - Bike Lane
"
"

"

Class III - Bike Route
" "

Class IV - Cycle Track
"
" "
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
Harbor Dr " " " " " " " "

Existing Bicycle Facility
" " " " " " "

" "

"
"

Proposed Bicycle Facility
" " "
" " "

" "

D i e g o
" "
" "

"
"
" " "

" " "
" " "
"
Laure

" " "

" "
Kalm

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
Ju

"
l St

" "
" "
ia St

" "
nipe
r St

Ivy S

Haw
t

" "

Ash St
" "

Beech St

" " " " ""

" " " " ""
5

Bike Facility in Adjacent Community
thorn

Grap

"
St

Kettner Bl
" "

" "

B a y
e St

" ""

"
"
W. Fir

" "
" " " "
S

"

"
"
t

"

"
Date St

Cedar St
" "

" " " " " "

"
" "

"
India St "
" "

"
"

"
"
" "
"

"
"
" "
" " " " " "
" "

"
" " " " " " " " " " " " "Columbia
" " "St " " " " " "
" " " "

"
" "

"
" " "

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " State
" "St" " " " " " " " " " "

"
"
"
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
Union
" St" " " " " " "

"
"
"

"
" "

"
Front St

"
Proposed Bicycle Network

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "

"
" " " " " First Ave

"
"

"
"
" " "

Second Ave

""
"

"
"
" "

"
" "

" " " " " " " " " " ""

"
" " " " " " "Third Ave" " " " " "

"
"

"
"

"
" " " " " " " " " " " " " "" " " " " " " " " " "

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
Fourth
" "Ave " " " " " "

"

"
"

"
"

" "
" "
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " Fifth
" "Ave" " " " " " "

F St
C St

K St
A St

G St
" " " " " B St
Elm St

" E"St "

" " "
" " "

Market St
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "" " "
" " " " "

" " " " Broadway

Island Ave
" " " " " " " " "
Sixth Ave

" "
" " " " " " "

Seventh Ave
" " " " " " " " " " "

" "

"

" " " " " " " " "
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " Eighth " " " "" " "
" " Ave
"

" " ""
"

"
" "

"
" " " " " " "

" " " " " " "

"
Ninth Ave

"

"
"
" "

" " " " " " " " " " "

" " " "

"
"

"
"
Tenth Ave

"
"
"

"
"

"
Eleventh Ave

"
163

"
" " " " " " " " " " " " "

"
" " " " " " " " " " J"St " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
" " " " "

"
"
" " " " " " " " " " Park

"
" "Bl " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
"

"
"

"
13th St "

"
"

"
"

"

"
"

"

"
" " " " "

" " " " " " " " " " " " 14th St " " " "

"
"

"

"
"
" "

"

"
"

"
"

"

0
"

"
Imperial Ave

"

"
Commercial St
15th St

"

"
"
" " " " " "
" " " " " " " " " " "

"
16th St
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "

0.1
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "

17th St
" " " "

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
" " "

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
" " " " "

5

0.2 Miles
N
94

DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN | 43
CHAPTER 5 | BICYCLING
CHAPTER 5 | BICYCLING

Figure 5-3 Typical Cycleway Concepts

 
Typical Cross-Section for Pacific Highway with One-Way Cycle Track
 
 
 

 
Typical Cross-Section for J Street with Two-Way Cycle Track
 
 
 
 
Note that cross‐section and conceptual plan illustrations are provided to demonstrate general feasibility of the subject proposal only. 
Actual improvements will require additional engineering studies and design work and shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 
   

44 | DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN
CHAPTER 5 | BICYCLING
 

Figure 5-3 Typical Cycleway Concepts (cont.)

 
Plan View Layout for J Street / Tenth Avenue Intersection
 
 
 
 
Note that cross‐section and conceptual plan illustrations are provided to demonstrate general feasibility of the subject proposal only. 
Actual improvements will require additional engineering studies and design work and shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 

DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN | 45
CHAPTER 5 | BICYCLING

Figure 5-4 J Street Two-Way Cycle Track Photo Simulation

 
Existing Streetscape – J Street between Tenth Avenue and Eleventh Avenue
(Looking West)

Proposed Streetscape – J Street between Tenth Avenue and Eleventh Avenue
(Looking West)
Note that cross‐section and conceptual plan illustrations are provided to demonstrate general feasibility of the subject proposal only. 
Actual improvements will require additional engineering studies and design work and shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 

46 | DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN
CHAPTER 5 | BICYCLING
 

Figure 5-5 Cycle Track Crossing Cycle Track Plan View and Photo Simulation

 
Plan View Layout for State Street / Beech Street Intersection
 
 

 
Proposed Streetscape – State Street / Beach Street Intersection (Looking North)
 
 
 
 
Note that cross‐section and conceptual plan illustrations are provided to demonstrate general feasibility of the subject proposal only. 
Actual improvements will require additional engineering studies and design work and shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 

DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN | 47
CHAPTER 5 | BICYCLING

Table 5-1 California Bicycle Facility Classifications
Class Description Example

Class I Bikeway (Bike Path) – Also referred to as
shared-use paths or multi-use paths, Class I
facilities provide a completely separated right-of-
way designated for the exclusive use of bicycles
and pedestrians with crossflows by motorists
minimized. Bike paths can provide connections
where roadways are non-existent or unable to
support bicycle travel. The minimum paved width
for a two-way bike path is 8 feet and 5 feet for a
one-way bike path, with a minimum 2 foot wide
graded area adjacent to the pavement.
 

Class II Bikeway (Bike Lane) – Provides a
striped lane designated for the exclusive or semi-
exclusive use of bicycles with through travel by
motor vehicles or pedestrians prohibited, but with
pedestrian and motorist crossflows permitted.
The minimum bike lane width where parking stalls
are marked is 5 feet. The minimum width for a
shared bike lane and parking lane is 11 feet.

 

Class III Bikeway (Bike Route) – Provides
shared use of traffic lanes with cyclists and motor
vehicles, identified by signage and street markings
such as “sharrows”. Bike routes are best suited
for low-speed, low-volume roadways with an
outside lane width of 14 feet.

 

Class IV Bikeway (Cycle Track) – Also referred
to as separated or protected bikeways, cycle
tracks provide a right-of-way designated
exclusively for bicycle travel within the roadway
and physically protected from vehicular traffic.
Types of separation include, but are not limited to,
grade separation, flexible posts, or on-street
parking.

 

48 | DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN
CHAPTER 5 | BICYCLING
 

Protected bike facilities also have the added benefit  As shown, increases ranging from 21% to 68% were 
of improving the pedestrian experience by  observed on one‐way cycle tracks, while 46% to 
providing an additional buffer between pedestrians  171% bicycle volume increases were observed 
and vehicles, as well as decreasing the crossing  along two‐way cycle‐tracks. 
distance across vehicle travel lanes.     
  Figure 5‐7 displays the proposed cycle tracks, 
The growth in bicycle ridership following cycle track  differentiating between one‐ and two‐way cycle 
implementation is not unique to Long Beach.  The  tracks and identifying directionality for streets that 
2014 report Lessons from the Green Lanes prepared  will include facilities in one direction. 
by the National Institute for Transportation and   
Communities examined the responses to the  Figure 5‐8 displays a conceptual plan view and 
installation of nine protected bicycle lanes in five  photo simulation of a two‐way cycle track driveway 
cities.  treatment along Sixth Avenue.  The colored 
  pavement is used to alert cyclists and drivers of the 
Figure 5‐6 presents the change in observed bicycle  conflict area and to emphasize cyclist priority over 
volumes prior to and after implementation of the  entering and exiting traffic.  Similar treatments are 
nine cycle tracks, distinguishing between one‐ and  proposed at all driveway locations intersecting cycle 
two‐way cycle tracks.   tracks. 
 
 
Figure 5-6 Change in Observed Bicycle Volume after Implementing Cycle Tracks

 
Source: Lessons from the Green Lanes, National Institute for Transportation and Communities (2014) 

DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN | 49
CHAPTER 5 | BICYCLING

Figure 5-7 Proposed Cycle Track Network

l St
Laure

Kalm
ia St 5 163
r St
Junipe

t
Ivy S

St
thorn
Haw

e St
Grap

S t
W. Fir
Elm St

Date St

Cedar St

Beech St

Seventh Ave
Columbia St

Second Ave

Eighth Ave
Fourth Ave
Kettner Bl

Ninth Ave
Harbor Dr

Sixth Ave
Fifth Ave
Third Ave
Union St

First Ave
Front St
State St
India St

Ash St

A St

B St

C St

Broadway

E St

F St

94
G St
Eleventh Ave
Tenth Ave

16th St

17th St
13th St

14th St

15th St
Park Bl
Market St

Island Ave

J St

K St

Imperial Ave

Commercial St
5
S a n D i e g o B a y

N
Type of Cycle Track
Two-Way Cycle Track
One-Way Cycle Track 0 0.1 0.2 Miles

50 | DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN
CHAPTER 5 | BICYCLING

Figure 5-8 Typical Cycle Track Driveway Treatment Concept

Plan View Layout for Sixth Avenue, between G Street and Market Street

Note that cross-section and conceptual plan illustrations are provided to demonstrate general feasibility of the subject proposal only.
Actual improvements will require additional engineering studies and design work and shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN | 51
CHAPTER 5 | BICYCLING

Figure 5-8 Typical Cycle Track Driveway Treatment Concept (cont.)

Existing Streetscape – Sixth Avenue between G Street and Market Street
(Looking North)

Proposed Streetscape – Sixth Avenue between G Street and Market Street
(Looking North)
Note that cross‐section and conceptual plan illustrations are provided to demonstrate general feasibility of the subject proposal only. 
Actual improvements will require additional engineering studies and design work and shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 

52 | DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN
CHAPTER 5 | BICYCLING
 

Cycle tracks are proposed along the following  Third Avenue
segments:  A two‐way cycle track will run along the west side of 
Third Avenue from B Street to Broadway.  Third 
North-South Cycle Tracks
Avenue currently has a single vehicular travel lane 
Pacific Highway  in each direction along this segment.  A lane diet 
One‐way cycle tracks will span the length of Pacific  will be implemented from B Street to C Street to 
Highway through Downtown, extending from Laurel  accommodate on‐street parking and the cycle track.  
Street to the roadway’s southern terminus at  Additionally, the lane widths will be reduced from C 
Harbor Drive.  This will connect the Midway/Pacific  Street to Broadway.  This segment serves to provide 
Highway Corridor Community and Little Italy to the  a connection to east‐west facilities at Broadway and 
Waterfront Park, Santa Fe Depot, San Diego Bay,  B Street.   
Seaport Village and the Headquarters.  Pacific   
Highway is currently a six‐lane roadway with a  Fourth Avenue 
raised median and intermittent on‐street parking.   A southbound one‐way cycle track will run along 
To accommodate cycle tracks, one travel lane will  the east side of Fourth Avenue from Date Street to 
be removed in each direction.  The existing median  B Street.  A parallel northbound one‐way cycle track 
will remain and intermittent on‐street parking will  will run along the west side of Fifth Avenue from 
be preserved in most instances.  The cycle track will  Date Street to B Street.  This cycle track will connect 
intersect with east‐west cycle tracks at Hawthorn  the Uptown community north of Interstate 5 to 
Street, Grape Street, Beech Street, and Broadway.  Downtown and intersect with east‐west cycle tracks 
  at Beech Street and B Street.  Fourth Avenue 
State Street  currently has three southbound vehicular travel 
A two‐way cycle track will run along the west side of  lanes along this segment.  One lane will be removed 
State Street from Interstate 5 to the roadway’s  to accommodate the cycle track. 
southern terminus at Market Street.  This will   
connect the Uptown community to Downtown, and 
will provide a protected north‐south bicycle facility 
for the Little Italy, Columbia and Marina 
neighborhoods.  Between West Fir Street and 
Broadway, State Street currently has three 
northbound vehicular travel lanes, which will 
require a road diet resulting in two northbound 
lanes to accommodate the cycle track.  South of 
Broadway, State Street currently has one vehicular 
travel lane in each direction.  The wide southbound 
lane along this segment will be reduced to 
implement the cycle track and angled parking at the 
south end, where it exists, will be converted to 
parallel parking.  The cycle track will intersect with 
east‐west cycle tracks at Hawthorn Street, Grape 
Street, Beech Street, and Broadway. Appendix G 
includes a conceptual plan view depicting a 
potential alignment of the State Street cycle track, 
between Date Street and Cedar Street, with parking 
located curbside and the buffer located between 
the parking lane and the counter flow (southbound) 
cycleway.  Green paint can be used to emphasize conflict zones as shown 
in this image of Broadway in Seattle.

DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN | 53
CHAPTER 5 | BICYCLING

Fifth Avenue  a contraflow cycletrack, while a Class III bicycle 
A northbound one‐way cycle track will run along  route marked by sharrows will provide for 
the west side of Fifth Avenue from Date Street to B  southbound bicycle travel. The existing on‐street 
Street.  A parallel southbound one‐way cycle track  parking will be maintained along this segment.  In 
will run along Fourth Avenue from Date Street to B  addition to providing north‐south connections for 
Street.  This cycle track will connect the Uptown  the East Village neighborhood this cycle track will 
community north of Interstate 5 to Downtown and  also serve to improve safety conditions for cyclists 
intersect with east‐west cycle tracks at Beech Street  near San Diego High School and San Diego City 
and B Street.  Fifth Avenue currently has three  College where, historically, relatively higher bicycle 
northbound vehicular travel lanes along this  collisions were recorded.  The cycle track will run 
segment.  One lane will be removed to  parallel to portions of the Blue and Orange Lines, 
accommodate the cycle track.  The cycle track will  and provide access to stations at Smart Corner and 
intersect with east‐west cycle tracks at Beach Street  Market Street.  The cycle track will intersect with 
and B Street.  east‐west cycle tracks at C Street and J Street.  
   
Sixth Avenue  East-West Cycle Tracks
A two‐way cycle track will run along the east side of 
Hawthorn Street  
Sixth Avenue from Beech Street to its southern 
A westbound one‐way cycle track will run along the 
terminus at L Street.  This will provide a north‐south 
south side of Hawthorn Street from Harbor Drive to 
connection through Downtown’s central 
State Street.  A parallel eastbound one‐way cycle 
neighborhoods and access to the Blue and Orange 
track will run along Grape Street from Harbor Drive 
Lines at C Street, as well as the Green Line’s 
to State Street.  The cycle track will connect Little 
Gaslamp Quarter Station.  Sixth Avenue currently 
Italy and the Uptown community to the San Diego 
has three southbound vehicular travel lanes.  One 
Bay.  On‐street parking along the south side will be 
lane will be removed to accommodate the cycle 
removed to accommodate the cycle track, however, 
track.  The cycle track will intersect with east‐west 
the three vehicle travel lanes will remain.  The cycle 
cycle tracks at Beech Street, B Street, C Street, and J 
track will intersect with north‐south cycle tracks at 
Street. 
State Street and Pacific Highway, and the existing 
 
multi‐use path adjacent to Harbor Drive. 
Park Boulevard  
One‐way cycle tracks will run along each side of 
Grape Street
Park Boulevard from Interstate 5 to C Street.  North 
An eastbound one‐way cycle track will run along the 
of C Street, the intermittent on‐street parking will 
north side of Grape Street from Harbor Drive to 
be removed to accommodate the cycle‐tracks.  
State Street.  A parallel westbound one‐way cycle 
South of C Street it will be a two‐way cycle track on 
track will run along Hawthorn Street from Harbor 
the east side of Park Boulevard on the widened 
Drive to State Street.  The cycle track will connect 
sidewalk to E Street.  At the E Street intersection 
Little Italy and the Uptown community to the San 
the cycle track will transition to the west side of 
Diego Bay.  On‐street parking will be removed on 
Park Boulevard and will convert the single 
both sides of Grape Street to accommodate the 
southbound lane into two‐way bicycle travel only 
cycle track and an additional vehicular travel lane.  
through the prohibition of vehicular travel, with the 
The cycle track will intersect with north‐south cycle 
exception of the segment between Market Street 
tracks at State Street and Pacific Highway, and the 
and Island Avenue where Park Boulevard will 
existing multi‐use path adjacent to Harbor Drive. 
remain open to vehicular traffic.  As shown in 
 
Appendix G, along the Park Boulevard segment 
Beech Street 
between Market Street and Island Avenue 
northbound bicycle travel will be accommodated by  A two‐way cycle track will run along the south side 
of Beech Street from Pacific Highway to Sixth 

54 | DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN
CHAPTER 5 | BICYCLING
 

Avenue.  The cycle track will provide an east‐west  connection through the center of Downtown, with 
connection for the Little Italy and Cortez Hill  B Street and C Street providing connections east of 
neighborhoods and access to the Green Line Trolley  Third Avenue.  This bicycle facility will improve 
between Pacific Highway and Kettner Boulevard.   cyclist safety along a main transit corridor with high 
Both vehicular travel lanes will be maintained.  In  vehicular volumes.  Lane diets will be required the 
some instances angled parking will be converted to  length of the segment to accommodate the cycle 
parallel parking to accommodate the cycle track.   track.  The cycle track will intersect with north‐
The cycle track will intersect with north‐south cycle  south cycle tracks at Pacific Highway, State Street 
tracks at Pacific Highway, State Street, Fourth  and Third Avenue.  On‐going evaluation will 
Avenue, Fifth Avenue, and Sixth Avenue.  consider the feasibility to continue this bicycle 
  facility east to Sixth Avenue. 
B Street   
A two‐way cycle track will run along the south side  J Street 
of B Street from Third Avenue to Sixth Avenue.  This  A two‐way cycle track will run along the south side 
segment serves to continue the east‐west  of J Street from First Avenue to Interstate 5.  The 
connection through the center of Downtown with  cycle track will provide an east‐west connection in 
Broadway serving the western side of the  the southern part of Downtown through the East 
community and C Street serving the east.  B Street  Village, Horton Plaza/Gaslamp Quarter, and Marina 
currently has three westbound vehicular travel  neighborhoods.  Additionally, the J Street cycle 
lanes.  One lane will be removed to accommodate  track will provide access to the San Diego Central 
the cycle track.  The cycle track will intersect with  Library, Petco Park, San Diego Convention Center, 
north‐south cycle tracks at Third Avenue, Fourth  and the Green Line.  Both vehicular travel lanes will 
Avenue, Fifth Avenue, and Sixth Avenue.  be maintained.  In some instances angled parking 
  will be converted to parallel parking to 
C Street  accommodate the cycle track and parking will be 
A two‐way cycle track will run along the north side  eliminated on the south side of J Street, between 
of C Street from Sixth Avenue to Interstate 5. This  Seventh and Tenth avenues.  The cycle track will 
segment serves to continue the east‐west  intersect with north‐south cycle tracks at Sixth 
connection through the center of Downtown with  Avenue and Park Boulevard. 
Broadway and B Street providing connections west   
of Sixth Avenue.  Similar to Park Boulevard, the C  Future Considerations
Street cycle track will also serve to improve safety  Both Market Street and the entire length of 
conditions for cyclists near San Diego High School  Broadway were also considered for cycle tracks, 
and San Diego City College where, historically,  however, after discussing the roadway 
relatively higher bicycle collisions were recorded.  C  modifications required to implement cycle tracks on 
Street, from 6th Avenue to 10th Avenue, will be  these roadways with community members and 
closed to vehicular traffic to accommodate the  other stakeholders, these facilities were ultimately 
cycle track.  Additionally, between 10th Avenue and  left out of the recommended network.  Potential 
Interstate 5 one of the three eastbound vehicular  cycle tracks along Market Street and Broadway 
travel lanes will be removed.  The cycle track will  were analyzed in the Downtown Mobility Plan 
intersect with north‐south cycle tracks at Sixth  Technical Report.  These analyses provide flexibility 
Avenue and Park Boulevard.  for future implementation should community 
  attitudes shift regarding mobility along these 
Broadway (west of Third Avenue)  corridors. 
One‐way cycle tracks will run along each side of 
Broadway from Harbor Drive to Third Avenue.  This 
segment serves to continue the east‐west 

DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN | 55
CHAPTER 5 | BICYCLING

 
 

This page was intentionally left blank. 

56 | DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN
CHAPTER 6 | TRANSIT
 

6 Transit
 
 
 
Providing an efficient, high quality transit system, 
especially in high intensity communities such as 
Downtown, is vital to maintaining acceptable levels 
of mobility for all travelers.  It is important to 
consider that transit riders are also typically 
pedestrians at the beginning and end of their trips.  
For a truly complete and holistic mobility network, 
providing connections between modes, especially 
walk‐to‐transit and bike‐to‐transit, is of critical 
concern. 
 
General Plan Policies ME‐B.1 through ME‐B.10, as 
well as the goals and policies proposed in this 
Chapter should be consulted for guidance. 
 

6.1 Existing Conditions
Transit opportunities in Downtown are more 
plentiful than anywhere in the County.  Local bus, 
Rapid Bus, light rail (Trolley), commuter rail   
(Coaster), and rail (Amtrak) can all be accessed   
Downtown.  These varying services connect 
Downtown to neighboring communities, cities, and  For a truly complete and holistic
regions.  SANDAG plans, engineers, and builds  mobility network, providing
public transportation infrastructure throughout the 
region.  MTS operates local bus and Rapid Bus 
connections between modes,
services and the Trolley.  The Coaster is operated by  especially walk-to-transit and bike-to-
the North County Transit District (NCTD), while  transit, is of critical concern.
Amtrak operates rail services. 
   
Transit needs are identified in terms of high  Figure 6‐1 displays existing transit needs in 
demand and high deficiencies.  Areas of high  Downtown.  There is generally strong coverage 
demand are defined by relatively high transit  throughout Downtown in terms of transit 
boardings and alightings, while high deficiency is  stops/stations.  The highest transit boardings and 
characterized by network gaps, or underserved  alightings are found near the Downtown center 
corridors, and transit stop locations with relatively  (near Civic/Core neighborhoods) and in the 
high pedestrian‐ and/or bicycle‐involved collisions  northwest corner of the East Village.  Additional 
within 500 feet.  locations or nodes of transit importance include the 
Santa Fe Depot, 12th and Imperial Transit Center, 
and the City College Transit Station.

DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN | 57
CHAPTER 6 | TRANSIT

Figure 6-1 Transit Needs

Transit Needs
Major Transit Corridor
l St
Laure
Unacceptable LOS
ia St 5
Kalm
=
<
! Failing Intersection
er St
Junip Major Transit Center
t
Ivy S Top 5 Trolley Stations

Haw
thorn
S t
163 Top 5 Bus Stations

Grap
e St High Bike/Ped Collisions
Near Transit Station
S t
W. Fir
Elm St

Date St

Cedar St
=
<
!
Beech St

Seventh Ave
Columbia St

Second Ave

Eighth Ave
Fourth Ave
Kettner Bl

Ninth Ave
Harbor Dr

Third Ave

Sixth Ave
Fifth Ave
Union St

First Ave
Front St
State St
India St

Ash St

A St

B St
=
<
!
C St

=
<
! Broadway

E St
=
<
!
F St
=
<
!
94
G St
=
<
!
Eleventh Ave
Tenth Ave

16th St

17th St
13th St

14th St

15th St
Park Bl
Market St

Island Ave

J St
=
<
!
K St

L St

Imperial Ave

Commercial St
5
S a n D i e g o B a y

N
0 0.1 0.2 Miles
75

58 | DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN
CHAPTER 6 | TRANSIT
 

Bicycle and pedestrian collisions within 500‐feet of  A general overview of the planned improvements 
transit stops were most prevalent along the  identified in the RTP includes the following: 
Broadway and Market Street corridors, and 
 20‐minute  peak  hour  and  60‐minute  off‐
clustered around the blocks near the intersection of 
peak hour Coaster headways 
11th Avenue and C Street.  The high collision 
 10‐minute  peak  hour  Rapid  Bus  headways 
volumes in these areas potentially indicates unsafe 
to Escondido via the Interstate 15 corridor; 
or inadequate pedestrian and cycling environments, 
San  Diego  State  University  via  the  Park 
which could hinder growth in transit ridership.   
Boulevard/El  Cajon  Boulevard  corridor; 
 
Otay  Border  crossing  via  the  State  Route 
Improving pedestrian and bicycle safety near transit 
94/Interstate  805  corridor;  North  Park  via 
locations is important for connecting the first and 
Golden Hill; and Coronado via Barrio Logan 
last mile between transit stops and user origins and 
destinations.  This connection is vital to sustaining   15‐minute  peak  hour  Rapid  Bus  headways 
and increasing the transit mode share in  to Santee and El Cajon Transit Centers; San 
Downtown.  Ysidro,  and  Kearney  Mesa  via  Hillcrest  and 
  Mission Valley 
The adopted regional transportation plan (RTP), San   Streetcar  with  10‐minute  all  day  headways 
Diego Forward: The Regional Plan, serves as the  from  Downtown  to  Hillcrest;  Little  Italy  to 
blueprint for a regional transportation system with  East  Village;  and  30th  Street  to  Downtown 
a Horizon Year of 2050.  Figure 6‐2 displays the  via North Park and Golden Hill  
2050 Revenue Constrained Transit Network as   10‐minute  all  day  headways  on  most  local 
identified in the RTP.  Appendix C identifies the  bus routes 
planned public transit improvements impacting   7.5‐minute Trolley all day headways 
Downtown as reflected in the Revenue Constrained   Downtown  San  Diego  Street  Car  between 
Network.  Little  Italy  and  East  Village  with  10‐minute 
  headways 
 Mid‐Coast  Trolley  from  Downtown  to 
University  City  via  Old  Town  and  the 
University of California, San Diego 
 Rapid Bus service to North Park and Golden 
Hill,  Kearny  Mesa,  Coronado,  Spring  Valley 
and SDSU 
 
General Plan Policies ME‐B.1 through ME‐B.10, as 
well as the goals and policies presented in this 
Chapter should be considered when evaluating 
transit mobility and planning future improvement 
projects. 
 

Pedestrian and bicycle safety near
transit locations is important for
connecting the first and last mile
between transit stops and user origins
and destinations.
 
 

DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN | 59
CHAPTER 6 | TRANSIT

Figure 6-2 2050 Revenue Constrained Transit Network

l St
Laure

Kalm
ia St 5
er St
Junip

Ivy S
t 163
St
thorn
Haw

e St
Grap

Fir St

Date St

Cedar St

Beech St

Seventh Ave
Columbia St

Second Ave

Eighth Ave
Fourth Ave
Kettner Bl

Ninth Ave
Harbor Dr

Third Ave

Sixth Ave
Fifth Ave
Union St

First Ave
Front St
State St
India St

Ash St

A St

B St

C St

Broadway

E St

F St

94
G St
Eleventh Ave
Tenth Ave

16th St

17th St
13th St

14th St

15th St
Park Bl
Market St

Island Ave

J St

K St

L St

Imperial Ave

Commercial St
5

S a n D i e g o B a y
Transit Network
Commuter Rail

Light Rail

Rapid Bus

Streetcar

Local Bus 0 0.1
N
0.2 Miles

60 | DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN
CHAPTER 6 | TRANSIT
 

6.2 Goals & Policies  
T‐P‐2  Work with other agencies to support 
planned street improvements to 
Transit Goals
accommodate transit. 
T‐G‐1  A land use pattern that supports a flexible,   
fast, frequent, and safe transit system,  T‐P‐3  Coordinate with agencies responsible for 
providing connections within Downtown  planning, implementing, building, and 
and beyond.  operating public transportation 
  infrastructure and services, such as 
T‐G‐2  An attractive and convenient transit system  SANDAG, MTS, NCTD, and Amtrak to 
that is the first choice of travel for many  provide: 
trips made within, to, and from Downtown. 
 Rapid Bus service, improving the 
 
commuter and long‐distance 
T‐G‐3  Increased transit use among Downtown 
transit network with state‐of‐the‐
residents, workers, and visitors. 
art technology to provide more 
 
frequent and faster trips in and out 
Transit Policies of Downtown. 
T‐P‐1  Locate the highest intensity developments   Bus service modifications to 
in or near trolley corridors to maximize the  improve service, and to increase 
level of activity with strong transit  transit accessibility when the 
accessibility.  internal shuttle and Rapid Bus 
  services begin. 
 
T‐P‐4  Work with relevant agencies to eliminate or 
mitigate adverse impacts of freight train 
traffic on adjacent pedestrians, land uses, 
and residents.  Impacts include blocked 
intersections and horn noise.  If impact 
mitigation strategies fail, reconsider the 
feasibility of undergrounding freight lines 
through all strategic portions of Downtown. 
 
T‐P‐5  Enhance streetscapes within Transitways to 
increase attractiveness for all users and 
promote shared transit, pedestrian and 
cyclist use. 
 
T‐P‐6  Encourage SANDAG to develop real time 
information and signage systems for all 
Downtown transit facilities. 
 
T‐P‐7  Coordinate transit station design with the 
transit agency to ensure inviting, enjoyable 
places, with shade, public art, landscaping, 
and memorable design features reflective 
of the surrounding environment. 
   

DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN | 61
CHAPTER 6 | TRANSIT

T‐P‐8  Cooperate with the transit agency on public  6.3 Transit
programs and campaigns to increase transit 
use for various types of trips, especially  Recommendations
work, shopping, and entertainment. 
  Increasing transit ridership to, from, and within 
T‐P‐9  Coordinate with regional rail and transit  Downtown is an important component of future 
planners to monitor intra‐city passenger  mobility.  In addition to providing an efficient, well 
and freight concepts and potential impacts  connected transit network, transit amenities and 
on Downtown.  transit stop environments play a role in encouraging 
  transit ridership.  The planned public transit 
T‐P‐10  The City of San Diego, in conjunction with  network identified in the 2050 RTP is comprised of 
Civic San Diego, should pursue  local bus, rapid bus, light rail (Trolley), commuter 
implementation of a demand response  rail (Coaster), and rail (Amtrak). 
shuttle system within the Downtown area.    
The shuttle system should provide a point‐ Figure 6‐3 displays the proposed Transitways, 
to‐point experience which could be  identifying corridors where transit and transit users 
requested from a mobile device.  The  are prioritized.  Figure 6‐4 presents a cross‐section 
shuttle system will maintain and enhance  of the Park Boulevard Transitway. 
public access to and along the waterfront   
for residents, workers and visitors of  These corridors were selected based upon their 
Downtown.  The shuttle system should  existing and planned transit services and high 
include linkages to the airport, MTS  transit demand.  Transit is a priority along these 
transportation hubs, and key Downtown  corridors.  Special consideration should be paid to 
destination points.  transit stops along the identified Transitways.  High 
  quality transit shelters, bike racks, bike share 
T‐P‐11  Work with SANDAG and MTS to ensure  stations, information kiosks, and other amenities 
transit routes maximize efficiency through  that serve to promote transit and improve the 
the avoidance of angled parking along main  environment and experience for transit users 
transit routes.  should be considered.  Additionally, future analysis 
  of the F Street and G Street couplet may consider a 
T‐P‐12  Work with SANDAG and MTS to ensure bus  peak period transit/High Occupancy Vehicle Lane in 
routes, bus stops and bus turning radii are  the parking lane. 
evaluated in the design of street and   
sidewalk improvements. 
 
T‐P‐13  Ensure future installation and replacement 
of traffic signals in Downtown incorporate 
multi‐ring controller units with advance 
traffic controller logic for complex 
intersection and network operations that 
promote efficient transit mobility.  
 
 
 
 

 

62 | DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN
CHAPTER 6 | TRANSIT

Figure 6-3 Proposed Transitways

l St
Laure 163
Kalm
ia St 5
er St
Junip

t
Ivy S

St
thorn
Haw

e St
Grap

S t
W. Fir
Elm St

Date St

Cedar St

Beech St

Eighth Ave
Harbor Dr

Pacific Hwy

Kettner Bl

India St

Columbia St

State St

Union St

Front St

First Ave

Second Ave

Third Ave

Fourth Ave

Fifth Ave

Sixth Ave

Seventh Ave

Ninth Ave
Ash St

A St

B St

C St

Broadway

E St

F St

94
G St
Tenth Ave

Eleventh Ave

Park Bl

13th St

14th St

15th St

16th St

17th St
Market St

Island Ave

J St

K St

L St

Imperial Ave

Commercial St
5
S a n D i e g o B a y

Transitway 0 0.1
N
0.2 Miles

DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN | 63
CHAPTER 6 | TRANSIT

Figure 6-4 Park Boulevard Transitway Cross-Section

 
 
Note that cross‐section and conceptual plan illustrations are provided to demonstrate general feasibility of the subject proposal only. 
Actual improvements will require additional engineering studies and design work and shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 
   

64 | DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN
CHAPTER 7 | VEHICULAR TRAFFIC
 

7 Vehicular Traffic
 
 
 
Despite the relatively high levels of residential and 
employment density, mix of land uses, and plentiful 
transit opportunities, the vast majority of 
Downtown residents report driving as the primary 
mode used for the work commute.  Additionally, 
Downtown is an important cultural and 
entertainment hub for the region, attracting 
thousands of visitors that frequently drive to the 
community.  The existing street network in 
Downtown provides a high degree of connectivity, 
allowing for shorter travel distances between trip 
origins and destinations.  Downtown’s street 
system also provides multiple regional access points 
by three freeways, including I‐5, SR‐163, and SR‐94.  
Maintaining a convenient, efficient street system 
for inter‐ and intra‐community travel is critical to 
preserving Downtown’s status as a key regional 
destination.  
   
 
This Chapter describes existing conditions related to 
Similar to pedestrian and bicycle involved collisions, 
vehicular mobility and proposes a set of goals and 
intersections with relatively high collision 
policies to support the street system in Downtown.  
occurrences are located near freeway access 
The proposed street system plan is also presented, 
points, including the following intersections: 
including the identification of segment specific 
modifications.   Fourth Avenue and Ash Street 
   Fifth Avenue and Ash Street 
General Plan Policies ME‐C.1 through ME‐C.7, Table   Fifth Avenue and A Street 
ME‐2 (Traffic Calming Toolbox), as well as the goals   Tenth Avenue and A Street 
and policies proposed in this Chapter provide   Eleventh Avenue and A Street 
guidance for future street and intersection   16th Avenue and F Street 
modifications and improvements.   16th Avenue and G Street 
   
Peak period intersection Level of Service (LOS) was 
7.1 Existing Conditions generally found to be acceptable, with the following 
exceptions: 
A comprehensive data collection and analysis effort 
 Second Avenue and Cedar Street (AM ‐ LOS F) 
was undertaken to report the existing traffic 
 B Street and 17th Street (AM – LOS F) 
demands and deficiencies in Downtown.  Figure 7‐1 
 Broadway and Front Street (PM – LOS F) 
displays roadway needs, addressing safety issues, 
 E Street and 16th Street (AM – LOS F) 
operational deficiencies, and capacity deficiencies. 
 F Street and 15th Street (PM – LOS F) 
 
 G Street and 17th Street (PM – LOS F) 

DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN | 65
CHAPTER 7 | VEHICULAR TRAFFIC

Figure 7-1 Street and Freeway Needs

Street and Freeway Needs
Freeway Access
l St
Laure
Unacceptable LOS
Kalm
ia St 5
One-Way to Two-Way
er St
Junip
=
<
! Failing Intersection
t
Ivy S +LJK&ROOLVLRQV •
t
Haw
thorn
S
Barrier to Vehicular Travel
e St
163
Grap

S t
W. Fir
Elm St

Date St

Cedar St
=
<
!
Beech St

Seventh Ave
Columbia St

Second Ave

Fourth Ave
Kettner Bl

Ninth Ave
Harbor Dr

Eighth Ave
Third Ave

Sixth Ave
Fifth Ave
Union St

First Ave
Front St
State St
India St

Ash St

A St

B St
=
<
!
C St

=
<
! Broadway

E St
=
<
!
F St
=
<
!
94
G St
=
<
!
Eleventh Ave
Tenth Ave

16th St

17th St
13th St

14th St

15th St
Park Bl
Market St

Island Ave

J St
=
<
!
K St

L St

Imperial Ave

Commercial St
5
S a n D i e g o B a y

N
0 0.1 0.2 Miles
75

66 | DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN
CHAPTER 7 | VEHICULAR TRAFFIC
 

SS‐P‐7  Provide for sustainable street designs 
7.2 Goals & Policies including storm water infiltration and 
reduction in storm water runoff as well as 
Street System Goals flooding. 
 
SS‐G‐1  A street typology based on functional and 
SS‐P‐8  Encourage street designs that allow for 
urban design considerations, emphasizing 
temporary street closures for public and 
connections and linkages, pedestrian and 
community events. 
cyclist comfort, transit movement, and 
 
compatibility with adjacent land uses. 
  7.3 Street Recommendations
SS‐G‐2  An enhanced street grid that promotes 
flexibility of movement, preserves and/or  The street system should provide for the efficient 
opens view corridors, and retains the  movement of vehicles along specific corridors with 
historic scale of the streets.  enhancements to pedestrian, cycling, and parking 
  facilities.  Autoways identify Downtown streets 
Street System Policies where driving is prioritized.  These roadways 
SS‐P‐1  Implement the street typology shown in  typically provide for high volume automobile and 
Figure 4‐1 when carrying out streetscape  transit flows into, out of, and through Downtown.  
improvements.  Autoways are intended to support these high 
  volumes by providing maximum efficiency while 
SS‐P‐2  Prohibit and discourage any interruption of  also considering safety. 
the street grid.   
  Figure 7‐2 presents the proposed Autoways, while 
SS‐P‐3  Forge new connections and view corridors  Figure 7‐3 displays a typical Autoway cross‐section. 
as larger sites are redeveloped, opening   
rights‐of‐way at the waterfront, through 
the Civic Center and along Cedar Street, 
among others.  Require full vehicle and 
pedestrian access in new connections 
except where precluded by existing plans 
and projects. 
 
SS‐P‐4  Work with appropriate transportation 
agencies on freeway improvements in and 
near the Downtown area. 
 
 
SS‐P‐5  Implement the proposed improvements   
within this Mobility Plan, with specific 
reductions in vehicular travel lanes on 
certain streets, which can then facilitate 
enhanced bicycle and pedestrian facilities. 
 
SS‐P‐6  Evaluate and provide specific vehicular 
travel lane configurations for all streets 
(number of travel lanes, one‐way vs. two‐
way circulation). 

DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN | 67
CHAPTER 7 | VEHICULAR TRAFFIC

Figure 7-2 Proposed Autoways

l St
Laure 163
Kalm
ia St 5
er St
Junip

t
Ivy S

St
thorn
Haw

e St
Grap

S t
W. Fir
Elm St

Date St

Cedar St

Beech St
Harbor Dr

Pacific Hwy

Kettner Bl

India St

Columbia St

State St

Union St

Front St

First Ave

Second Ave

Third Ave

Fourth Ave

Fifth Ave

Sixth Ave

Seventh Ave

Eighth Ave

Ninth Ave
Ash St

A St

B St

C St

Broadway

E St

F St

94
G St
Tenth Ave

Eleventh Ave

Park Bl

13th St

14th St

15th St

16th St

17th St
Market St

Island Ave

J St

K St

L St

5
Imperial Ave

Commercial St

S a n D i e g o B a y

Autoway 0 0.1
N
0.2 Miles

68 | DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN
CHAPTER 7 | VEHICULAR TRAFFIC

Figure 7-3 Typical Autoway Cross-Section

Note that cross-section and conceptual plan illustrations are provided to demonstrate general feasibility of the subject proposal only.
Actual improvements will require additional engineering studies and design work and shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN | 69
CHAPTER 7 | VEHICULAR TRAFFIC

The Downtown street system currently consists of  alignment east of 13th Street.  The modification will 
both one‐ and two‐way streets, with some streets  provide additional right‐of‐way to implement 
alternating the permitted directions of travel.   enhanced Greenway features, such as expanded 
Figure 7‐4 identifies one‐way street segments  sidewalk widths and increased landscaping. 
proposed for conversion to two‐way streets to   
provide for increased vehicular mobility. 
  The street system should provide for
Each of the street segments proposed for 
the efficient movement of vehicles
conversion are identified below, including the 
rational for the modification:  along specific corridors with
  enhancements to pedestrian, cycling,
Third Avenue and parking facilities.
(Date Street to A Street) 
This segment will be modified to better align with   
Third Avenue south of A Street and north of Fir  Road Diets
Street.  Converting the three‐lane northbound 
As described in Chapter 3 one of the key drivers of 
segment to two‐lanes with bidirectional travel will 
the mobility network development was to create a 
also provide additional right‐of‐way needed to 
feasible system that can be implemented by 
accommodate angled parking which will increase 
repurposing and reconfiguring the existing public 
overall supply along this segment.  
right‐of‐way to better accommodate all modes of 
 
travel.  A system wide traffic operational analysis 
Eighth Avenue was conducted to determine which Downtown 
(Ash Street to G Street) streets have excess capacity and where an auto 
This segment of Eighth Avenue will be altered to be  travel lane may be removed to accommodate a 
consistent with Eighth Avenue south of G Street.   greenway, a separated bicycle facility, or angled 
The three‐lane southbound segment will be  (from parallel) on‐street parking to off‐set the 
modified to provide a single lane in each direction,  potential parking losses associated with the 
which will provide additional right‐of‐way to  implementation of cycle tracks and greenways. The 
implement enhanced Greenway features, such as  proposed road diets are displayed in Figure 3‐3 and 
expanded sidewalk widths and increased  summarized in Table 7‐1. 
landscaping.   
 
Ninth Avenue
(Ash Street to Market Street) 
The three northbound travel lanes along this 
segment of Ninth Avenue will be modified to a 
single lane in each direction, to be consistent with 
the alignment south of Market Street.  The 
modification will allow for the implementation of 
angled parking which will increase street parking 
capacity. 
 
E Street
(Fourth Avenue to 13th Street)
The three eastbound travel lanes along this 
segment of E Street will be modified to a single lane   
in each direction, to be consistent with the 

70 | DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN
CHAPTER 7 | VEHICULAR TRAFFIC

Figure 7-4 Proposed One-Way to Two-Way Street Conversions

l St
Laure 163
Kalm
ia St 5
er St
Junip

t
Ivy S

St
thorn
Haw

e St
Grap

S t
W. Fir
Elm St

Date St

Cedar St

Beech St

Seventh Ave
Columbia St

Second Ave

Fourth Ave
Kettner Bl

Eighth Ave

Ninth Ave
Harbor Dr

Third Ave

Sixth Ave
Fifth Ave
Union St

First Ave
Front St
State St
India St

Ash St

A St

B St

C St

Broadway

E St

F St

94
G St
Eleventh Ave
Tenth Ave

16th St

17th St
13th St

14th St

15th St
Park Bl
Market St

Island Ave

J St

K St

L St

Imperial Ave

Commercial St
5
S a n D i e g o B a y

Convert One-Way to Two-Way
Existing Two-Way Streets
Existing One-Way Streets 0 0.1
N
0.2 Miles

DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN | 71
CHAPTER 7 | VEHICULAR TRAFFIC

Table 7-1 Proposed Road Diets
Segment From To
North-South Road Diets
Pacific Highway Laurel Street Harbor Drive
Kettner Boulevard Ivy Street Grape Street
Kettner Boulevard Cedar Street Ash Street
India Street Beech Street Broadway
Columbia Street Juniper Street Broadway
State Street West Fir Street Broadway
Second Avenue Cedar Street A Street
Third Avenue Date Street C Street
Fourth Avenue Date Street B Street
Fifth Avenue Date Street B Street
Sixth Avenue Elm Street J Street
Seventh Avenue Ash Street K Street
Eighth Avenue Ash Street J Street
Ninth Avenue A Street Market Street
14th Street E Street Market Street
17th Street Market Street J Street
East-West Road Diets
Cedar Street Second Avenue Seventh Avenue
B Street Third Avenue Sixth Avenue
C Street Tenth Avenue Interstate 5
E Street Fourth Avenue 14th Street
 
 
Road Closures southbound lane.  Park Boulevard, from 
Market Street to Island Avenue, will remain 
In addition to above road diets, a couple of roadway  open to vehicular traffic to facilitate 
closures to vehicular traffic are also proposed to  commercial deliveries and maintain on‐
accommodate the implementation of continuous  street parking. Appendix G includes a plan 
separated bicycle facilities along C Street and Park  view graphic of this segment demonstrating 
Boulevard.    the proposed alignment. 
 Sections of C Street, from Sixth Avenue to   
Tenth Avenue, will be closed to vehicular  Lane Diets
traffic.  This segment currently provides a 
In some instances repurposing an entire vehicular 
single eastbound lane.  Vehicular traffic is 
travel lane is not necessary, rather a lane diet or 
currently prohibited west of this segment, 
narrowing the lanes will provide sufficient width to 
on C Street from Second Avenue to Sixth 
accommodate the recommended improvement.  
Avenue. 
The proposed lane diets are listed in Table 7‐2. 
 Sections of Park Boulevard, from E Street to   
Market Street, and Island Avenue to K   
Street, will be closed to vehicular traffic.  
These segments currently provide a single 

72 | DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN
CHAPTER 7 | VEHICULAR TRAFFIC
 

Table 7-2 Proposed Lane Diets
Segment From To
North-South Lane Diets
Union Street Date Street Island Avenue
Third Avenue C Street Broadway
Eighth Avenue Date Street Ash Street
Ninth Avenue Market Street J Street
Park Boulevard Interstate 5 C Street
Park Boulevard Market Street Island Avenue
13th Street C Street E Street
14th Street C Street E Street
14th Street Market Street Commercial Street
15th Street C Street Broadway
17th Street F Street Market Street
17th Street J Street Imperial Avenue
East-West Lane Diets
Cedar Street Pacific Highway First Avenue
Cedar Street Seventh Avenue Tenth Avenue
Beech Street Pacific Highway Sixth Avenue
B Street Kettner Boulevard State Street
Broadway Harbor Drive Third Avenue
E Street 14th Street 17th Street
Island Avenue Union Street Interstate 5
J Street First Avenue Interstate 5
K Street Third Avenue Seventh Avenue
K Street Park Boulevard 17th Street
 
   

DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN | 73
CHAPTER 7 | VEHICULAR TRAFFIC

 
 

This page was intentionally left blank.

74 | DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN
CHAPTER 8 | TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT
 

8 Transportation Demand
Management
 
 
 
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) can be 
defined as a broad set of strategies that strive to 
reduce or reallocate automobile travel to achieve 
regional benefits such as reduced congestion, 
improved air quality, reduced energy use and 
greenhouse gas emissions, improved public health 
for those biking or walking, and reduced 
commuting and travel costs.  Throughout the San 
Diego region SANDAG currently coordinates a range 
of programs aimed at reducing traffic congestions 
and increasing the number of commuters who 
rideshare through carpooling or vanpooling, ride 
transit, bike, walk, and telecommute. 
 
The remainder of this Chapter explores existing 
TDM practices, recommended goals and policies 
and recommended strategies to implement.  This 
Chapter generally divides TDM strategies into 
Active Transportation (strategies to increase 
bicycling and walking) and conventional TDM 
strategies. 
 
8.1 Existing Conditions  
A brief description of each strategy is provided 
Table 8‐1 presents TDM strategies employed in  below.  More detailed TDM strategy descriptions 
Downtown and throughout the region.  are provided in Appendix D. 
 
 
Table 8-1 TDM Strategies
Active Transportation Strategies Conventional Strategies
Wayfinding Public Transit
Bike Parking Ridesharing
Bike Share Carsharing
Ciclovias / Open Streets / Sunday Parkways Parking Management
Education and Enforcement Flexible Work Arrangements
Outreach and Marketing

DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN | 75
CHAPTER 8 | TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM)

Wayfinding
Wayfinding tools, including signs, pavement 
markings, and maps are an invaluable resource for 
pedestrians and bicyclists.  They are especially 
needed by those who are not familiar existing 
routes, such as beginning cyclists or tourists. 
 
Civic San Diego is currently in the process of 
updating wayfinding signage in Downtown.  The 
Wayfinding Design Signage Upgrade includes 
pedestrian circulation signs and kiosks as well as 
signage to direct pedestrians and bicyclists to 
nearby trails, but does not comprehensively 
address bicycle wayfinding needs in Downtown. 
 
Bike Parking
Convenient and secure bike parking is a necessary 
component of a comprehensive bicycle 
accommodation strategy.  Bike racks should be   
Wayfinding Sign on Third Avenue. 
located in close proximity to building entrances and   
should be easily visible to a passerby. 
Open Streets / Ciclovias / Sunday
 
The San Diego Municipal Code ensures that bike  Parkways
racks will be implemented in new developments  The term “Ciclovia” refers to a public street that has 
and through redevelopment.  Businesses can  been closed to vehicular traffic, but remains open 
request a bike rack by sending an email to a  to bicyclists and pedestrians.  San Diego’s version of 
designated recipient at the City  the Ciclovia, termed CicloSDias, began in 2011 and 
(trafficops@sandiego.gov).  All costs associated  was held for the third time in November 2014.  The 
with rack installation and maintenance are borne by  event is organized by the San Diego County Bicycle 
the City.  Requests for racks in Downtown are  Coalition with assistance from the City of San Diego 
handled by Civic San Diego.  and San Diego County, as well as various non‐profit 
  and private companies. 
Bike Sharing  
The bike sharing program in San Diego is operated  Education and Enforcement
in partnership between the City of San Diego and  The San Diego County Bicycle Coalition holds 
DecoBike.  Upon buildout completion, the network  classes on a regular basis, including Bicycle Traffic 
will provide approximately 1,800 bikes, dispersed  Skills 101, bicycle repair classes, bike rodeos, and 
across over 180 stations in San Diego, with the  classes geared towards women and family riding.  
greatest concentration located in Downtown.  Bikes  Along with their classes, the San Diego County Bike 
can be rented by the half‐hour, or via unlimited ride  Coalition website has several educational resources 
memberships.  DecoBike offers a map of bike‐ addressing topics such as sharrows, bike lanes, 
sharing stations, including real‐time bike inventories  roundabouts, and how to pass bikes safely, among 
and free docks  others.  The SANDAG Bike Map also includes 
(http://www.decobike.com/sandiego/map‐ information on bicycle laws and safe riding 
location).   practices, bike parking, and taking bikes on transit 
  vehicles. 

76 | DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN
CHAPTER 8 | TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM)
 

Ridesharing
Carpooling and vanpooling (known collectively as 
ridesharing) have the goal of increasing average 
vehicle occupancy rates on the roadway system.  
These strategies are among the most cost‐effective 
alternate transportation choices, especially in areas 
underserved by transit.  In addition to lower 
commute costs, rideshare participants benefit from 
the use of high‐occupancy vehicle (HOV) and high‐
  occupancy toll lanes, which reduce commute times.  
A variety of TDM programs are available through SANDAG’s 
iCommute program.  However, ridesharing remains an unattractive 
  option for some commuters due to inconvenient 
In 2011, the San Diego Police Department issued a  access, inflexibility, and unreliability.  There are 
memo to its Patrol and Traffic Officers clarifying the  various TDM strategies to address the limitations of 
application of traffic safety laws to bicyclists on San  ridesharing, including financial support, rideshare 
Diego roadways.  More recently, the Department  matching, and guaranteed ride home. 
has participated in a multi‐agency bike safety   
campaign to promote the passage of a 3‐foot  Carsharing
passing law in California.  To address distracted  Carsharing programs allow registered users to 
driving and walking, the San Diego Police  reserve and rent cars at hourly or daily rates.  
Department recently conducted targeted  Carshare programs include private companies, non‐
enforcement of pedestrian and motorist violations  profit or government run programs, private vehicle 
that affect pedestrian safety.  fleets, and peer‐to‐peer services.  Carsharing, in 
  combination with transit and other alternative 
Outreach and Marketing modes, allow individuals on‐demand access to cars 
Outreach and marketing related to bicycling and  without the added costs of vehicle ownership.  
walking builds interest, enthusiasm, and support for  Private carsharing companies have operated in San 
non‐motorized transportation.  Outreach can occur  Diego since 2002, when Flexcar (purchased by 
through a wide variety of events and programs,  Zipcar in 2007) began offering services.  San Diego 
including bike‐to‐work day and bike‐to‐work month,  selected Flexcar in 2004 for their Station Car Pilot 
employer‐based competitions, Safe Routes to  Program to address first/last mile connections.  In 
School events, helmet fittings, and equipment  2009, SANDAG studied the viability of on‐street 
giveaways, among others.   parking for a carshare system and in 2011, Car2Go 
  service launched and has a current all‐electric fleet 
Public Transit of 400 vehicles.  The peer‐to‐peer service, 
RelayRides, also operates in San Diego. 
Transit programs are essential to a successful TDM   
program, as they offer an alternative to single‐
occupancy vehicle (SOV) travel that is accessible to 
a large percentage of the population.  While transit 
agencies provide a public service by offering 
mobility to transit dependent populations, transit 
providers also help meet the goals of TDM 
programs to the extent they are utilized by “choice 
riders”.  Choice riders are individuals who choose 
transit over driving even though they can afford to 
 
drive.    Parking is reserved for car share vehicles at Horton Plaza. 

DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN | 77
CHAPTER 8 | TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM)

Parking Management
Free parking reduces the overall cost of vehicle 
ownership and usage, which results in higher levels 
of SOV usage.  Charging for parking in central 
business districts and other office locations, along 
with other innovative parking management 
practices can reduce or eliminate this subsidy and 
improve overall system efficiency.   
   
The Comprehensive Parking Plan for Downtown  TDM Policies
includes a variety of recommendations to improve 
the management of existing parking capacity.  The  TDM‐P‐1  Implement TDM approaches and 
recommendations include a number of best  participation in existing TDM programs, 
practices outlined in this report such as shared  including but not limited to those 
parking agreements and variable parking pricing.   overseen by SANDAG and MTS, in order 
  to: 
Flexible Work Arrangements  Encourage rideshare and carpool in 
all levels of government with 
Flexible work arrangements, including teleworking 
offices and facilities Downtown as 
and discretionary arrival/departure times allow 
well as other major Downtown 
employees to forego work trips or modify their 
employers 
timing to avoid travel during peak times.  SANDAG’s 
iCommute program has a Telework pilot program   Designate preferential, 
(TeleworkSD) that offers free consulting services for  conveniently located car/vanpool 
employers who want to effectively implement  parking areas 
telecommuting strategies in their work place.   Provide transit reimbursement and 
  other benefits to users of non‐
General Plan Policies ME‐E.1 through ME‐E.8, as  motorized travel 
well as the following goals and policies should be   Establish a car/van‐pool matching 
considered when evaluating TDM improvements.  service that could use mechanisms 
  such as sign‐ups at individual 
buildings, or via electronic mail or 
8.2 Goals & Policies an Internet website. 
 Continue SANDAG’s guaranteed 
TDM Goals
ride home for workers who carpool 
TDM‐G‐1  A Downtown transportation demand   Work with public and private 
management program that minimizes  entities to encourage car share 
energy consumption, vehicle miles  programs in Downtown 
traveled, and vehicular traffic   Provide flextime and 
contributions from new and existing  telecommuting opportunities to 
development.  employees 
TDM‐G‐2  A viable set of joint use parking   Provide designated shuttle stops 
arrangements for evenings, weekends,  for the publicly accessible shuttle 
and holidays that is coordinated with  serving the Downtown area, with 
regional transportation planning and  routing to include key destination 
demand management programs.  points, such as the airport, hotels, 
and visitor‐serving facilities. 

78 | DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN
CHAPTER 8 | TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM)
 

8.3 TDM Recommendations Conventional TDM Recommendations
Public Transit
Active TDM Recommendations
 Evaluate bike capacity on transit buses and 
Wayfinding trains and address gaps as needed. 
 Develop and implement a bicycle wayfinding   Develop a plan to address first/last mile transit 
signage plan, using the Civic San Diego  access. 
Wayfinding Design Signage Upgrade as a guide.   
  Ridesharing
Bike Parking
 Continue to encourage use of SANDAG’s 
 Implement a comprehensive bicycle parking  RideMatch Tool 
program as recommended in the City of San  (www.icommutesd.com/commuters/tripplanner). 
Diego Bicycle Master Plan.   
 Develop and publicize guidelines for the  Carsharing
implementation of bike corrals.   Continue to encourage and evaluate carshare 
  use within Downtown. 
Bike Sharing  
 Closely  monitor  and  evaluate  the  bike  sharing  Parking
system  to  develop  a  strategic  approach  to   Continue to implement recommendations in 
future network expansion.  the Comprehensive Parking Plan for Downtown.  
 
 
Open Streets / Ciclovias / Sunday
Flexible Work
Parkways
 Continue to implement the TeleworkSD 
 Depending on attendance levels, consider 
program and evaluate its success over time. 
holding CicloSDias events on a more frequent 
basis. 
 Explore optimal institutional and management 
arrangements to maximize the effectiveness of 
CicloSDias. 
 
Education
 Explore the feasibility of developing a bicycle 
ambassadors program for San Diego. 
 Develop a comprehensive set of educational 
materials with a consistent design and 
marketing approach. 
 As new bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure is 
installed, such as protected bike lanes or 
pedestrian hybrid beacons, develop and 
distribute educational materials to ensure the 
public understands how they are intended to   
Priority parking is reserved for car share vehicles on B Street in 
be used.  Downtown. 

DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN | 79
CHAPTER 8 | TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM)

 
 

This page was intentionally left blank.

80 | DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN
CHAPTER 9 | PARKING
 

9 Parking
 
 
 
Parking is a vital component of any transportation 
system, and even more so in the Downtown 
community due to the high levels of residential and 
employment density.  Downtown’s position as a key 
regional destination for dining, cultural, and 
entertainment activities further emphasize the 
need for adequate and convenient parking options. 
 
General Plan Policies ME‐G.1 through ME‐G.5, and 
Table ME‐3 (Parking Strategy Toolbox), as well as 
the following goals and policies should be 
referenced when evaluating parking conditions and 
considering new parking facilities or modifications. 
 
 
9.1 Goals & Policies  
Parking Policies
Parking Goals
P‐P‐1  Require a certain portion of on‐site 
P‐G‐1  Parking accommodations that serve  motorcycle and bicycle parking in addition 
growing needs by improving the  to automobile spaces. 
management of parking demand through   
the promotion and use of several  P‐P‐2  Emphasize shared parking approaches, 
alternative forms of travel, such as transit,  including: 
carshare, bikeshare, carpool, and other 
 Development of parking facilities 
ridesourcing options. 
that serve multiple uses, to enable 
 
efficient use of space over the 
P‐G‐2  New parking structures that accommodate 
course of the day; 
parking needs from multiple land uses to 
the extent possible and allow shared   Parking under new parks that are 
parking where possible.  full‐block or larger in size, where 
  not limited by geological or other 
P‐G‐3  New public garages throughout Downtown,  constraints; and 
in locations contributing to efficient   Enhance on‐street parking through 
circulation, and convenient and proximate  restriping streets where 
to eventual destinations.  appropriate. 
   
P‐G‐4  Public parking resource(s) near each  P‐P‐3  Allow off‐site and/or shared parking 
Neighborhood Center that provide short‐ arrangements where appropriate to 
term parking for merchants and businesses.  maximize efficient use of parking resources. 
   
   

DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN | 81
CHAPTER 9 | PARKING

P‐P‐4  Work with developers of high‐density  P‐P‐12  Consider additional guidance on 
developments unable to accommodate  implementation of parking management 
parking on site to allow development/use  strategies that are included in the SANDAG 
of parking under public parks, where  Regional Parking Management Toolbox. 
appropriate and feasible.    (http://www.sandag.org/uploads/publicatio
  nid/publicationid_1910_18614.pdf)  
P‐P‐5  Work with the Port to provide public   
parking in the Waterfront/Marine area, and 
with the City, County and other agencies in  9.2 Parking Management
the Civic/Core area. 
  The implementation of parking management 
P‐P‐6  Ensure that all public parking structures  programs and policies can provide many benefits in 
maximize the potential for subterranean  regards to parking utilization and capacity within 
parking and incorporate other uses at  the Downtown area.  In dense urban areas, such as 
higher, visible building floors where  Downtown, targeted parking supplies can be 
feasible.  Explore the use of technological  managed to maintain a higher utilization rate 
advancements (robotic parking, parking  throughout the day, resulting in a focused parking 
lifts, etc.) to improve cost/parking  demand in key areas, instead of a sprawling 
efficiencies in the public garages.  demand throughout the entire community.  
  Focused parking demands are much easier to 
P‐P‐7  Maximize the efficiency of on‐street  maintain, manage and direct the general public to, 
parking by managing metered time limits  resulting in lower costs, demand for fewer overall 
and pricing to correspond with daily activity  parking spaces and less patrons driving around city 
patterns.  streets searching for parking spaces. 
   
P‐P‐8  Provide for parking designs and solutions 
that maximize public on‐street parking and 
also enhances pedestrian and bicycle 
environments. 
 
P‐P‐9  Strive to maintain on‐street parking 
availabilities by converting parallel parking 
to angled parking where possible. 
 
P‐P‐10  Evaluate curb space allocations with 
management of metered time limits to 
assist with achieving an efficient balance 
between loading/passenger drop‐off, valet 
parking needs, and short‐ and long‐term 
parking. 
 
P‐P‐11  Maintain a comprehensive marketing and 
communications strategy to inform 
residents, business owners, employees, and 
visitors of all parking policy updates. 
 
Dynamic signs can be used to display the location and quantity 
of available parking spaces.  

82 | DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN
CHAPTER 9 | PARKING
 

Civic San Diego is currently in the process of  Website and Smart Phone
implementing the following parking management  Applications
programs within the Downtown community: 
  With the recent implementation of smart meter 
Reconfiguration of Existing On-Street technology throughout the Downtown area, as well 
as the development of websites, such as 
Parking to Increase Parking Capacity 
http://www.ParkitDTSD.com, allow the opportunity 
Civic San Diego is planning to conduct a Downtown‐ for the development of smart phone applications 
wide project to reconfigure and convert existing on‐ that display real‐time information as to where both 
street parking. The objective is to reconfigure or  public off‐street and on‐street parking vacancies.  
convert vacated driveways, obsolete curb zones  This information is already available for both City 
(red zones, white passenger loading zones, etc.) in  operated public parking structures (Parking it on 
order to maximize on‐street parking availability.   Market and 6th and K) and is currently being 
Civic San Diego will utilize a study conducted on the  expanded to include other public parking facilities.  
current inventory of parking conditions throughout  Additionally, consider the feasibility of pay‐by‐
Downtown to determine which locations will need  phone options. 
to be reconfigured or converted.  Additionally, as   
proposed in this plan, Civic San Diego will look for 
opportunities to increase on‐street parking supply 
by converting parallel parking spaces to angled 
parking spaces on roadways which are not classified 
as auto ways, bikeways or greenways. 
 
Downtown Circulator Shuttle 
Civic San Diego is currently in the process of 
implementing a Downtown Circulator shuttle that 
would reduce the demand for parking on interior 
streets and surface lots.  The proposed Downtown 
Circulator Shuttle will provide a free on‐demand 
shuttle service (similar to rideshare programs like   
www.ParkitDTSD.com displays parking lots by neighborhood or 
UBER) to and from any location within the  near the users’ location using smart phone GPS. 
Downtown area.   The service will provide visitors   
convenient and accessible mobility throughout 
Downtown thereby encouraging them to park in 
the peripheries of the parking district or to use 
public transportation to travel Downtown. 
   
New Public Parking Facilities
Civic San Diego is currently planning to implement a 
new 200 parking space underground public parking 
structure beneath the East Village Green Park 
project, to be located on the block between F 
Street to the north, G Street to the south, 13th 
Street to the west and 14ths Street to the east.  
This structure will serve the quickly growing East   
www.ParkitDTSD.com provides information about each parking 
Village Neighborhood.  facility, such as hours of operation, capacity, rates, and 
  payment types. 

DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN | 83
CHAPTER 9 | PARKING

Civic San Diego should investigate the feasibility of  available as they enter the Downtown area, so they 
the following parking management programs within  quickly travel to their desired parking facility and 
the Downtown community:  avoid driving from facility to facility in hopes to find 
  available spaces.  This treatment is particularly 
Shared Public Parking Facilities effective when larger events occur within the 
Downtown area such as ball games, concerts and 
Development of additional shared public off‐street  major conventions when parking facilities near the 
parking facilities serving high parking demand areas  event tend to fill up quickly.  
such as little Italy, Central Core, the Ball Park   
District and the Gaslamp Quarter.  Shared public 
Dynamic Pricing
parking facilities should be well spaced from one 
another to avoid an overlap of parking demand.  Dynamic pricing allows the per hour cost at parking 
  meters to change from day to day or even hour to 
Advertising hour based on the historical demand of a group of  
parking meters within a specific zone or 
Public parking facilities should be clearly branded to  neighborhood.  The dynamic pricing technology 
separate themselves from private parking facilities.  looks at the historic use at the meters and adjusts 
This lets potential consumers know that they are  the per hour prices up during times in which the 
allowed to park within the facility.  The cost of  meters have been historically in demand and 
parking should be in clear sight to passing motorists  adjusts prices down during historic times in which 
to allow them to quickly choose from the street if  the meters have not been used.  Dynamic pricing 
they are willing to pay to park within the facility or  can also be linked to smart phone applications to let 
not.    consumers decide whether they would like to pay a 
  premium for in‐demand spaces or pay less to park 
Enhanced Bicycle and Pedestrian further away. 
Facilities  
Providing clearly defined pedestrian and bicycle  Enhanced Enforcement
paths between parking facilities and popular  The implementation of Smart Meter technology 
destinations within the Downtown area can  also allows for technological enhancements for 
increase the range in which patrons are willing to  parking enforcement.  With the implementation of 
park away from their desired destination, meaning  censor technology at the parking meters, alerts can 
that more facilities become available to them.  be sent to parking enforcement officers about 
  where vehicles are parked at an expired meter and 
Shared Parking Agreements where cars have been parked in a space beyond the 
Shared private parking agreements can provide  authorized time limit.  These technologies can 
additional supply to the public  by allowing  significantly reduce parking enforcement costs and 
consumers to park in unused private parking  allow for better enforcement creating higher 
facilities during non‐peak periods (i.e. during the  parking turn over. 
day for facilities serving residential use and at night   
for facilities serving office uses).   
 
Dynamic Message Signs
Implement dynamic message signs at freeway off 
ramps entering into the Downtown area that 
display the various public lots and the number of 
spaces that are currently available within them.  
This informs motorists as to where parking is   

84 | DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN
CHAPTER 9 | PARKING
 

Parking Considerations intersection along the cycleways.  Each bulb‐out is 
assumed to take up half of a parking space; 
Some of the pedestrian, bicycle and green street  therefore, two parking spaces per block (0.5 spaces 
improvements included in the Mobility Plan may  x 4 corners) were assumed to be removed to 
require the removal of on‐street parking spaces due  accommodate these improvements.  
to right‐of‐way constraints.  The majority of these   
losses can be made up by converting parallel on‐ Greenways– Based on the initial concept designs, 
street parking spaces to angled parking spaces on  on‐street parking will be removed on one side of 
the streets in which improvements are not  the roadway to accommodate the proposed green 
proposed.  To understand the magnitude of change  street improvements.  As a worst case scenario, it 
in the on‐street parking supply with the full  was assumed that the maximum number of parking 
implementation of the Mobility Plan, a planning  spaces would be removed on every block (i.e. no 
level assessment was conducted assuming worst  driveways, turn pockets, loading‐zones or red‐zones 
case scenario conditions (i.e. the highest potential  are currently present).  This results in 12 spaces 
for lost spaces).  It should be noted that this  being removed on north/south blocks and 8 spaces 
assessment was strictly done at a planning level and  being removed on east/west blocks. 
is based on a series of general assumptions, as   
outlined below.  The actual number of parking  Angled Parking Conversion – To make up for some 
spaces gained and/or lost will not truly be known  of the on‐street parking spaces lost with 
until actual civil engineering design plans are fully  implementation of the bicycle and pedestrian 
developed for each specific improvement.  improvements, the preferred plan proposes to 
  convert parallel parking spaces to angled parking, 
General Assumptions along roadways where feasible.  Based on a review 
The following general assumptions were used to  of the existing blocks within the Downtown area 
determine the change in on‐street parking within  where parking has been converted from parallel to 
the Downtown area, with the implementation of  angled, north/south blocks typically gain about 8 
the Mobility Plan:  spaces per block while east/west blocks typically 
  gain about 3 spaces per block.  These numbers 
Cycleways – Based on initial conceptual designs, the  include the assumption of one driveway per block.  
implementation of a cycle track, in either direction   
(i.e. north/south or east/west), will require the  In addition to the parking changes identified above, 
removal of two parking spaces per block.  The  Civic San Diego is also looking at the following 
removal of these spaces is based on the general  improvements to help off‐set any parking losses: 
assumption that there will be at least one driveway   
per block, on the same side of the roadway as the  East Village Green Parking Structure – Civic San 
cycle track.  One parking space on either side of the  Diego is currently in the process of developing the 
driveway (2 total spaces) will need be removed in  East Village Green parking structure, which is a 200‐
order to provide adequate site distances for  space public parking structure located in the East 
motorists.  This is assumed to be a worst case  Village.  The structure will be constructed under the 
scenario since there are several block faces along  western portion of the East Village Green Park, 
the roadway corridors in which cycle tracks are  located on the block bound by F Street, G Street, 
proposed where driveways are not present.   13th Street and 14th Street.  This structure is 
However, one driveway per block is assumed as a  planned to be constructed around the same time as 
worst case scenario, since the driveway  the short‐range improvements (over the next 10 
configuration of future development is unknown.  years). 
   
Pedestrian Improvements – Bulb‐outs (stripped or  Update to the Comprehensive Parking Plan for 
raised) are assumed at all corners of every  Downtown San Diego – Civic San Diego is currently 

DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN | 85
CHAPTER 9 | PARKING

preparing to update their Comprehensive Parking  227 public parking spaces within the Downtown 
Plan for Downtown.  As part of the plan update,  area.   
Civic San Diego will re‐evaluate the existing on‐  
street parking inventory to look for opportunities to  Long-Range Implementation
convert red‐zones, loading‐zones and commercial‐
zones to standard pubic parking spaces.  This effort  The improvements in Chapter 13 categorized as 
is intended to significantly increase the number of  long‐range require more aggressive roadway 
available on‐street parking spaces within the  modifications, and include two cycleways, four 
Downtown area, and help to replenish some of the  greenways, and the conversion of two one‐way 
parking spaces lost to accommodate the Mobility  streets to two‐way streets.  Table 9‐2 displays the 
Plan Improvements.   projected net change in parking within the 
  Downtown area with the assumed short‐range and 
long‐range projects implemented. 
Short-Range Implementation
 
Chapter 13 categorizes each recommendation as  Table 9-2
short‐ or long‐range, considering the feasibility of 
the planned improvements.  Short‐range projects  Long-Range Parking Changes
include all cycleways, with the exception of  Improvement Spaces Lost/Gained1
Hawthorn Street and Grape Street, and also include  Cycleways -419
the 14th Street and E Street Greenways. Angled  Pedestrian Improvements -196
parking shall be implemented on all feasible 
Greenways -662
corridors within Downtown prior to, or concurrently 
East Village Green Garage +200
with, short‐range projects to avoid any parking 
impacts that may result from implementing  Angled Parking Conversion +600
cycleways and greenways.  Net Change -477
   
Table 9‐1 displays the projected net change in  Note: 
1. The total number of parking spaces lost or gained are based 
parking within the Downtown area, with the  on estimations and a +/‐ 10% parking loss/gain should be 
assumed short‐range projects implemented.   considered. 
   
Table 9-1 As shown, the implementation of both the short‐
range and long‐range projects could result in a net 
Short-Range Parking Changes loss of approximately 477 parking spaces within the 
Improvement Spaces Lost/Gained1 Downtown area. 
Cycleways -331
14th St. & E St. Greenways -242
Angled Parking Conversion +600
East Village Green Garage +200
Net Change +227
 
Note: 
1. The total number of parking spaces lost or gained are based 
on estimations and a +/‐ 10% parking loss/gain should be 
considered. 
 
As shown, implementation of the short‐range 
projects will result in a net gain of approximately 

86 | DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN
CHAPTER 10 | INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
 

10 Intelligent
Transportation Systems
 
 
 
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) utilize 
technology to maximize the efficiency and 
effectiveness of multimodal transportation systems.  
ITS may increase vehicle throughput, reduce 
congestions, and provide real‐time data to the 
commuting public. 
 
General Plan Policies ME‐D.1 through ME‐D.6, as 
well as the following goals and policies should be 
considered when evaluating ITS improvements.  
 

10.1 Goals & Policies

ITS Goals
ITS‐G‐1  Improved mobility and safety through the 
application of state of the art 
 
transportation technologies.  Synchronized traffic signals keep cars moving to Interstate 5 
  along Grape Street. 
ITS‐G‐2  Real time mobility information displayed   
or made available to commuters.   
 
ITS Policies
ITS‐P‐1  Support implementation of ITS to 
improve safety, efficiency and service, 
and congestion, including but not 
limited to traffic signal coordination, 
traffic and transit information, smart 
parking technology, and transit priority 
measures. 
 
ITS‐P‐2  Encourage use of and accommodation 
for emerging technologies such as car 
charging stations as part of future 
infrastructure and development 
projects.   
 

DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN | 87
CHAPTER 10 | INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS

 
 

This page was intentionally left blank.

88 | DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN
CHAPTER 11 | AIRPORTS, PASSENGER RAIL, AND GOODS MOVEMENT
 

11 Airports, Passenger
Rail, & Goods Movement
 
 
 
Airports
The San Diego International Airport at Lindberg 
Field is in close proximity to Downtown, located just 
northwest of the community.  It is the busiest 
single‐runway commercial services airport in the 
nation with an average of 525 operations per day.  
In 2014, the San Diego International Airport served 
a record 18.7 million passengers, including 672,927 
international passengers, indicating a continual 
growth in passengers served.  The airport is 
operated by the San Diego County Regional Airport 
Authority.  Three major plans/projects will influence 
access to and from the airport, including 
Destination Lindbergh, the San Diego International 
Airport Consolidated Rental Car Facility project, and   
the San Diego International Airport Master Plan.   
  The San Diego International Airport Consolidated 
Destination Lindbergh is a long range planning  Rental Car Facility (CONRAC) project proposes 
effort to guide the ultimate build‐out of the San  consolidating rental car facilities currently serving 
Diego International Airport.  The plan proposes an  the airport into a single location located west of 
expanded configuration of the San Diego  Pacific Highway and north of Sassafras Street.  The 
International Airport that attempts to minimize  project proposes extending Sassafras Street west of 
airport‐related traffic impacts to adjacent  Pacific Highway and along the east end of the 
communities, and improve intermodal access to the  airport to serve as a point of access for rental 
airport.  The plan recommends improvements to  vehicles. 
the local and regional roadway networks providing   
access to the airport, as well as a new transit route  The current San Diego International Airport Master 
to serve the airport.  The Intermodal Transit Center  Plan was adopted in 2008 to serve as the future 
(ITC) is proposed as an intermodal hub to facilitate  blueprint for the airport’s 661 acres.  The Master 
airport access without the need for driving single‐ Plan provides guidance for the airport to meet 
occupant vehicles.  The ITC is planned to be located  anticipated growth for passengers, cargo and 
at the north end of the airport.  The plans also  operations.  Additionally, it outlines several local 
indicate that existing trolley lines, the Coaster,  roadway improvement measures near the airport 
Amtrak, new express bus routes, local bus routes,  to expand vehicular capacity and enhance airport 
and the planned California High Speed Rail system  access.  The San Diego Regional Airport Authority 
will all be served by the ITC.  (SDRAA) is currently in the process of updating the 
  Airport Master Plan. 

DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN | 89
CHAPTER 11 | AIRPORTS, PASSENGER RAIL, AND GOODS MOVEMENT

Passenger Rail
Union Station, commonly referred to as the Santa 
Fe Depot, provides passenger rail opportunities 
within Downtown and is operated by Amtrak.  This 
intercity connection offers many visitors and 
commuters an alternative transportation mode to a 
personal vehicle, with Amtrak’s Pacific Surfliner 
serving communities along the California coastline 
from San Diego in the south to San Luis Obispo in 
the north.  Amtrak reported 700,107 rail boardings 
and alightings at Union Station in FY 2014, making it 
the 12th busiest station in the national Amtrak 
System and 3rd busiest in California.   
   
Truck Freight 
Goods Movement
Most goods in the San Diego region are transported 
The efficient movement of goods is essential for  via truck through regional and local roadways.  
meeting basic consumer demands and requires  While the City of San Diego does not have a system 
interaction among multiple transportation modes.   of designated truck routes, regional truck access to 
The San Diego region is supported by intermodal  Downtown is provided by I‐5, SR‐163, and SR‐94.  
goods movement infrastructure consisting of  Within Downtown, industrial and commercial 
roadways, railways, maritime facilities, and airport  destinations are generally concentrated along 
facilities.  Downtown is located in close proximity to  Commercial Street, however truck access is 
several regionally significant goods movement  required throughout Downtown. 
facilities, including the San Diego International   
Airport, the Port of San Diego, coastal and inland  Rail Freight 
freight railways, and multiple regional freeways.   Rail freight is operated by the Burlington Northern 
Additionally, the San Ysidro Port of Entry to the  Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF) and the San 
south provides international access for goods to  Diego and Imperial Valley railroad (SD&IV).  BNSF 
and from Mexico.  A brief description of the truck,  operates freight rail service along the same right‐of‐
air, rail and maritime goods movement modes is  way as Amtrak and the Coaster passenger services.  
provided.  BNSF transports freight to points north and east of 
  San Diego County, such as Los Angeles and Arizona.  
According to the LOSSAN Corridor Strategic 
Assessment (January 2010) freight rail frequencies 
within this corridor are expected to double (from 4 
trains a day to 8) over the next 20 years.   
 
The SD&IV uses the Downtown railyard to store or 
interchange railcars and operates occasional short‐
haul freight services i along the Orange Line trolley 
corridor and more regular services on the Blue Line 
Trolley Corridor moving south to San Ysidro (freight 
rail services in San Diego County operate in off‐peak 
hours). This service provides an important freight 
connection between the US and Mexico.  
   
 

90 | DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN
CHAPTER 11 | AIRPORTS, PASSENGER RAIL, AND GOODS MOVEMENT
 

11.1 Goals & Policies

Airports, Passenger Rail, and Goods
Movement Goals
ARG‐G‐1  A comprehensive mobility network to 
move goods safely and efficiently through 
multiple transportation modes. 
 
  Airports, Passenger Rail, and Goods
 
Movement Policies
Air Freight 
In addition to the transport of freight on roadways,  ARG‐P‐1  Coordinate with and support the San 
cargo also moves in and out of Downtown via air  Diego County Regional Airport Authority 
freight transportation companies such as FedEx,  with implementation of the Airport 
DHL Express and UPS.  The San Diego International  Master Plan to ensure convenient and 
Airport serves as the primary regional airport for air  safe access to the airport.  
freight.   
  ARG‐P‐2  Work with responsible and affected 
Maritime  agencies, including Caltrans, SANDAG, 
Maritime cargo is shipped and received at the 10th  MTS, the San Diego Unified Port District, 
Avenue Marine Terminal located in the southeast  and the San Diego Regional Airport 
portion of Downtown.  Landside transportation  Authority, to enhance infrastructure and 
connectivity to both regional highways and the  facilitate the timely movement of goods. 
jointly‐used rail system is extremely important to   
this marine terminal.  ARG‐P‐3  Coordinate with Amtrak to identify and 
  implement measures to improve transit 
  user access, safety, and convenience. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN | 91
CHAPTER 11 | AIRPORTS, PASSENGER RAIL, AND GOODS MOVEMENT

 
 

This page was intentionally left blank.

92 | DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN
CHAPTER 12 | STORM WATER
 

12 Storm Water
 
 
 
Storm water infrastructure is designed to catch and 
direct water flow, however, heavy rains can result 
in flooding and storm water runoff.  When rain 
water hits roadway or sidewalk surfaces it may 
become contaminated by a variety of 
transportation and industrial related pollutants.  
Storm water pollution adversely affects the 
environment, however, there are measures that 
can be taken to reduce or mitigate storm water 
impacts. 
 
General Plan Policies CE‐E.1 through CE‐E.7, PF‐F.6,   
This landscaped median on Broadway is used to catch storm 
PF‐G.2, PF‐H.3, and PF‐I.1, as well as the following  water runoff. 
goals and policies should be considered when   
evaluating storm water improvements.  S‐P‐3  Implement water improvement programs 
  so there are systematic improvements and 
gradual replacement of water facilities 
12.1 Goals & Policies throughout the community. 
 
Storm Water Goals S‐P‐4  Support capital improvements to the 
S‐G‐1  A long term construction and maintenance  system where replacement lines are 
plan to manage storm water that serve the  needed. 
existing and future needs of the community   
and region.  S‐P‐5  Collaborate with neighborhood 
  organizations and other entities to 
S‐G‐2  A comprehensive, sustainable urban  coordinate timing and replacement of 
greening program to mitigate urban runoff,  infrastructure. 
while minimizing potable water use.   
  S‐P‐6  Install infrastructure that includes 
S‐G‐3  Cleaner storm water discharges into the  components to capture, minimize, and 
San Diego Bay.  prevent pollutants in urban runoff from 
  reaching the San Diego Bay. 
Storm Water Policies  
S‐P‐7  Encourage private property owners to 
S‐P‐1  Coordinate with the City of San Diego to  retrofit landscaped or impervious areas to 
manage and reduce storm water runoff.  better capture storm water runoff. 
   
S‐P‐2  Utilize permeable paving, bio swales and/or  S‐P‐8  Encourage neighborhood practices for 
other storm water design features that will  preventing and removing buildup of trash 
manage rain water and irrigation runoff  and pet waste.
while supporting heavy load vehicles. 

DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN | 93
CHAPTER 12 | STORM WATER

 
 

This page was intentionally left blank.

94 | DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN
CHAPTER 13 | IMPLEMENTATION
 

13 Implementation
 
 
 
This Chapter is intended to support implementation 
of the recommendations presented in the Mobility 
Plan by providing the following information: 
 A discussion of strategies to assist with 
implementing the mobility 
recommendations 
 Identification of short‐ and long‐range 
projects 
 Intersection design concepts 
 An overview of potential funding sources to 
consider pursuing 
 Monitoring program 
 
 
13.1 Implementation Strategies  
 
The recommendations presented in the Mobility  Alternatively, road diets reduce the total number of 
Plan were developed as feasible, cost‐effective  vehicle travel lanes along a roadway, which 
measures to improve existing and future mobility.   generally provides 10‐12 feet of right‐of‐way to 
Each of the recommendations can be implemented  accommodate improvements for other modes.  For 
within the existing curb‐to‐curb width, which  example, a road diet is proposed to remove one 
reduces construction costs by avoiding the  southbound travel lane on Fourth Avenue, from 
reconstruction of relatively new public  Date Street to B Street, in order to provide 
improvements made by development projects over  sufficient right‐of‐way to accommodate a one‐way 
the past 20 years.  Roadway improvements are  cycle track.  Traffic analyses were conducted in 
proposed to be achieved through two primary  support of the Mobility Plan, considering all 
strategies, lane diets and road diets, which  planned roadway modifications including the 
repurpose vehicular right‐of‐way for use by other  removal of travel lanes.  The results indicate neither 
modes.  existing, nor future, vehicular level of service will be 
  significantly impacted by the planned road diets. 
A lane diet acquires right‐of‐way by narrowing the   
width of a vehicular lane of travel.  For example,  The City of San Diego and SANDAG will be 
narrowing the vehicular travel lanes along  responsible for implementation of this plan.  Three 
Broadway, west of Third Avenue, to 12 feet  of the methods that may be used to implement the 
provides sufficient space to accommodate a one‐ recommendations include roadway resurfacing and 
way cycle track on each side of the street with the  restriping, allocation of the City’s Capital 
removal of on‐street parking.  Lane diets do not  Improvement Program funds, and the SANDAG 
impact roadway capacity.   Regional Bike Plan Early Action Program. 
   
   

DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN | 95
CHAPTER 13 | IMPLEMENTATION

Implementation with Planned consistent with those identified in the Early Action 
Maintenance and Resurfacing Projects Program, including Pacific Highway, Fourth Avenue, 
Fifth Avenue, and Park Boulevard.  The funds 
The planned Mobility Plan improvements can be  secured for these corridors will expedite the 
achieved through lane and road diets, which can be  implementation process. 
accomplished in conjunction with other planned   
improvements such as roadway resurfacing and  Downtown Parking District
restriping projects.  This is not only a cost effective 
strategy, but can also limit the impacts resulting  The Downtown Community Parking District collects 
from temporary roadway closures.  revenue from parking meters and public parking 
  structures to help fund projects that increase 
City of San Diego Capital parking supply or reduce demand on parking within 
Downtown.  Funds collected from the Parking 
Improvement Program
District are prioritized by the Civic San Diego Board 
The City of San Diego’s Capital Improvement  of Directors, with the final budget approved by the 
Program (CIP) is a long‐range plan for all individual  City Council. 
capital improvement projects and funding sources.    
The City of San Diego’s Budget includes a CIP 
Budget outlining which projects are approved for  13.2 Short- and Long-Range
funding.  The City Council approves a CIP Budget  Projects
each June, in time for the new fiscal year beginning 
in July.   Due to the high costs of many  Projects were categorized as short‐ or long‐range, 
infrastructure projects, the CIP Budget is a rolling  considering the feasibility of the planned 
budget, including five years of funding.  This  improvements.  In this context, feasibility is largely 
provides a potential source of funds to explore  defined by the availability of secured funding and 
implementing the recommendations set forth in the  ease of low cost construction.  Other important 
Mobility Plan.  considerations include consistency with adopted 
  planning documents and community receptiveness 
Downtown San Diego Public Facilities to the changes.  Table 13‐1 identifies project 
Financing Plan extents for short‐range projects, while Table 13‐2 
The Public Facilities Financing Plan provides a  identifies long‐range projects.  As shown, all 
funding source toward implementation of public  road/lane diets, one‐way to two‐way street 
facilities identified in the Downtown Community  conversions, are included as short‐range projects 
Plan.  Transportation facility projects identified in  due mainly to the ease of low cost construction and 
the current FY2015 Downtown community  the fact that these projects can be achieved with 
financing plan include street, transit, bicycle and  restriping/resurfacing.  Considering cycle tracks are 
pedestrian improvements, promenades, and below  complementary to one another and will best serve 
grade parking structures.  community members as a well‐connected network, 
  all but two recommended cycle tracks are identified 
as short‐range projects.  Implementing the network 
SANDAG Regional Bike Plan Early
as a whole, rather than individual segments, will 
Action Program establish a well‐connected grid of north‐south and 
In September 2013, the SANDAG Board of Directors  east‐west protected bicycle facilities that can 
approved the Regional Bike Plan Early Action  improve the safety and comfort for cyclists in 
Program, securing $200 million in funding for the  Downtown.  Angled parking conversion is proposed 
implementation of the Regional Bicycle Network  to occur prior to, or concurrently with, cycleway 
High Priority Projects.  Four of the corridors  implementation to ensure no short‐term net 
classified as cycleways in this Mobility Plan are  parking decrease. 

96 | DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN
CHAPTER 13 | IMPLEMENTATION
 

Table 13-1 Short-Range Projects
Segment From To
Cycleways
Pacific Highway One-Way Cycle Tracks Laurel Street Harbor Drive
State Street Two-Way Cycle Track Interstate 5 Market Street
Third Avenue Two-Way Cycle Track B Street Broadway
Fourth Avenue One-Way Cycle Track Date Street B Street
Fifth Avenue One-Way Cycle Track Date Street B Street
Sixth Avenue Two-Way Cycle Track Beech Street Southern Terminus
Park Boulevard One-Way Cycle Tracks Interstate 5 C Street
Park Boulevard Two-Way Cycle Track C Street K Street
Beech Street Two-Way Cycle Track Pacific Highway Sixth Avenue
B Street Two-Way Cycle Track Third Avenue Sixth Avenue
C Street Two-Way Cycle Track Sixth Avenue Interstate 5
Broadway One-Way Cycle Tracks Harbor Drive Third Avenue
J Street Two-Way Cycle Track First Avenue Interstate 5
Greenways
14th Street Greenway C Street Commercial Street
6th Avenue Greenway Elm Street Cedar Street
E Street Greenway Fourth Avenue 17th Street
One-Way to Two-Way Street Conversions
Third Avenue Interstate 5 A Street
E Street Fourth Avenue 13th Street
Road Diets
Pacific Highway Laurel Street Harbor Drive
Kettner Boulevard Ivy Street Grape Street
Kettner Boulevard Cedar Street Ash Street
India Street Beech Street Broadway
Columbia Street Juniper Street Broadway
State Street W. Fir Street Broadway
Second Avenue Cedar Street A Street
Third Avenue Date Street C Street
Fourth Avenue Date Street B Street
Fifth Avenue Date Street B Street
Sixth Avenue Elm Street J Street
Seventh Avenue Ash Street K Street
Eighth Avenue Ash Street J Street
Ninth Avenue A Street Market Street
14th Street E Street Market Street
17th Street Market Street J Street
Cedar Street Second Avenue Seventh Avenue
B Street Third Avenue Sixth Avenue

DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN | 97
CHAPTER 13 | IMPLEMENTATION

Table 13-1 Short-Range Projects
Segment From To
C Street Tenth Avenue Interstate-5
E Street Fourth Avenue 14th Street
Lane Diets
State Street Broadway Market Street
Union Street Date Street Broadway
Union Street W. F Street Island Avenue
Third Avenue C Street Broadway
Eighth Avenue Date Street Ash Street
Ninth Avenue Market Street J Street
Park Boulevard Interstate-5 C Street
13th Street C Street E Street
14th Street C Street E Street
14th Street Market Street Commercial Street
15th Street C Street Broadway
17th Street F Street Market Street
17th Street J Street Imperial Avenue
Kalmia Street Kettner Boulevard India Street
Juniper Street India Street Columbia Street
Cedar Street Pacific Highway First Avenue
Cedar Street Seventh Avenue Tenth Avenue
Beech Street Pacific Highway Sixth Avenue
B Street Kettner Boulevard State Street
Broadway Harbor Drive Third Avenue
E Street 14th Street 17th Street
Island Avenue Union Street Interstate 5
J Street First Avenue Interstate 5
K Street Third Avenue Seventh Avenue
K Street Park Boulevard 17th Street
Road Closures to Vehicular Traffic
C Street Sixth Avenue Tenth Avenue
Park Boulevard E Street K Street
 
   

98 | DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN
CHAPTER 13 | IMPLEMENTATION
 

Table 13-2 Long-Range Projects
Segment From To
Cycleways
Hawthorn Street One-Way Cycle Track Harbor Drive State Street
Grape Street One-Way Cycle Track Harbor Drive State Street
Greenways
Union Street Date Street Island Avenue
Cedar Street Pacific Highway Tenth Avenue
Island Avenue Union Street Interstate 5
Eighth Avenue Date Street J Street
One-Way to Two-Way Street Conversions
Eighth Avenue Ash Street G Street
Ninth Avenue Ash Street Market Street
 
13.3 Design Concepts track (one‐way or two‐way), roadway and 
intersecting roadway vehicle direction of travel 
This section serves to demonstrate how the  (one‐way or two‐way), presence of a cycle track on 
planned improvements will be accommodated  the intersecting roadway, and the traffic control.   
along each roadway.  Additional emphasis is placed   
on intersection operations along Cycleways to help  Table 13‐3 presents each of the intersection types 
ensure safety for roadway users where a cycle track  along with the frequency of its occurrence 
crosses through an intersection.  Downtown.  The intersection IDs presented in 
  Figure 13‐1 correspond with Table 13‐3, 
categorizing each intersection where a cycle track is 
Cycleway Conceptual Designs
found. 
Intersections require additional consideration when   
evaluating and designing bicycle facilities.   Additionally, Figure 13‐1 identifies intersections, 
Intersection designs along Cycleways should serve  denoted in red, that provide conceptual designs, 
to reduce conflicts between bicyclists and vehicles  which are provided in Appendix F.  Typical roadway 
by providing for improved visibility, a clearly  cross‐sections are also included in the Downtown 
defined right‐of‐way for each mode, and by  San Diego Mobility Plan Technical Report. 
facilitating predictable movements.     
 
A variety of intersection treatments can be used to  Intersection designs along Cycleways
help facilitate safe operations at intersections, 
including bicycle signalization, lead bicycle intervals 
should serve to reduce conflicts
at signalized intersections, bike boxes, intersection  between bicyclists and vehicles by
crossing markings, and two‐stage turn queue boxes.  providing for improved visibility, a
  clearly defined right-of-way for each
Acknowledging the varying characteristics related  mode, and by facilitating predictable
to intersections and intersection approaches within 
Downtown, an in depth inventory analysis and 
movements.
intersection design guide was created to facilitate 
 
Cycleway implementation.  Each intersection with a 
 
cycle track was grouped into one of twenty 
categories, identified based on the type of cycle 

DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN | 99
CHAPTER 13 | IMPLEMENTATION

Table 13-3 Cycle Track Intersection Types
Cycle Track
Primary Intersecting Cycle Track on
ID Type of Cycle Track Traffic Frequency
Roadway Roadway Intersecting Roadway
Control
A One-Way / One-Direction One-Way One-Way Two-Way Signalized 4
B One-Way / Two-Directions Two-Way One-Way One-Way / One Direction Signalized 2
C One-Way / One-Direction One-Way One-Way None Signalized 11
D Two-Way One-Way Two-Way None All-Way Stop 4
E One-Way / One-Direction One-Way Two-Way None Signalized 5
F Two-Way Two-Way One-Way None All-Way Stop 7
G Two-Way One-Way Two-Way Two-Way All-Way Stop 2
H Two-Way Two-Way Two-Way None All-Way Stop 8
I Two-Way Two-Way One-Way None Signalized 7
J One-Way / One-Direction One-Way Two-Way Two-Way Signalized 2
K Two-Way One-Way Two-Way Two-Way Signalized 2
L Two-Way One-Way One-Way Two-Way Signalized 2
M Two-Way Transit-Only One-Way None Signalized 3
One-Way / Two-Directions
N Two-Way One-Way One-Way / Two-Way Signalized 1
& Two-Way
One-Way / Two –
O One-Way / Two Directions Two-Way Two-Way Signalized 1
Directions
P One-Way / Two-Directions Two-Way One-Way / Two-Way Two-Way Signalized 1
Q One-Way / Two-Directions Two-Way One-Way None Signalized 5
R One-Way / Two-Directions Two-Way Two-Way None Signalized 7
S One-Way / Two-Directions Two-Way Two-Way Two-Way Signalized 1
T Two-Way One-Way Two-Way None Signalized 6
U Two-Way One-Way One-Way None Signalized 11
V Two-Way One-Way One-Way None All-Way Stop 2
 
 
 

100 | DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN
CHAPTER 13 | IMPLEMENTATION

Figure 13-1 Cycle Track Intersection Types

l St
Laure

!
(R Kalm
ia St 5
er St
Junip

!
( R
Ivy S
t

!
( (C !
! (A CSt
!
( HC
aw thorn

!
(B C !
!
( (C !
(A e St 163
!
(E !
(
C Grap

!B
( S t
!
(E W. Fir
Elm St

!
(D
Date St

!
(D
Cedar St
(C !
! (E !
(R
!
(P Beech St
! (I !
(F ! (F !
( G !
(H !
(I !
(I ! (F !
(H ! (J !
(J !
(I

Seventh Ave
Columbia St

Second Ave

Eighth Ave
Fourth Ave
Kettner Bl

Ninth Ave
Harbor Dr

Third Ave

Sixth Ave
Fifth Ave
Union St

First Ave
Front St
State St
India St

!
(R Ash St
!
(U !
(C !
(C !
(U
!
(U !
(C !
(C !
(U !
(Q A St

!
(D (K !
! (A !
(A !
(L !
(Q B St

!
(U !
(L !
(M !
(M !
(M ! (N !
(U !
(U ! (T C St
!
(T
!
(R !
(
O (R !
! (
Q !(R !
(P !(R !
(Q !
(Q !
(R !
(S !
(T !
(T Broadway

!
(U !
(U E St

!
(U !
(U F St

94
!
(Q !
(I !
(U !
(U G St
Tenth Ave

Eleventh Ave

16th St

17th St
13th St

14th St

15th St
!
(R !
(T !
(T !
(T Park Bl
Market St

!
(D !
(T Island Ave

!
(H ! (F !
(I ! (G !
(I !
(H !
(H !
(I ! (K !
(I ! (H !(H J St
!
(H !
(I
!
(V K St

L St

Imperial Ave

Commercial St
5
S a n D i e g o B a y

Type of Cycle Track
Two-Way Cycle Track
One-Way Cycle Track

N
!
(
X Intersection Type*

!
(
X Intersection Concept Example
0 0.1 0.2 Miles
*See Table 13-3 for Definitions

DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN | 101
CHAPTER 13 | IMPLEMENTATION

the Mobility Plan, including a 50 percent 
13.4 Cost Estimation contingency.  Detailed cost estimates are included 
in Appendix G. 
The opinion of construction cost was based on an   
approximation of construction quantities needed 
Table 13-4
for each type of improvement.  Reasonable unit 
costs were applied to each approximate quantity to  Planning Level Cost Estimation
arrive at a probable cost for major construction  Improvement Type Cost (in Millions)
items.  A 50 percent construction contingency  Greenways $25.75
factor was then applied to account for minor 
Pedestrian Improvements $7.22
construction item costs, and the uncertainty of the 
Bicycle Improvements $10.50
major item quantities given the level of conceptual 
detail at this stage in the process.  Roadway Improvements $19.32
  Total Cost $62.79
The cost estimations were broken into the following   
four improvement type categories: greenways, 
pedestrian improvements, bicycle improvements,  13.5 Funding Sources
and roadway network improvements.  The general 
elements assumed in the cost estimations for each  Potential sources to help fund the implementation 
of the four improvement categories include the  of the recommendations set forth in the Mobility 
following:  Plan can be found at all levels of government.  
  Many funding sources are highly competitive 
Greenways  grants, making it necessary for local governments 
 Landscape earthwork  to stay informed about available funds and 
 Sidewalk paving  associated requirements so they are prepared to 
 Landscape planting  pursue when applications are open. 
 Furnishings/signage   
  More traditional funding sources, such as Parking 
Pedestrian Improvements  District funds, Development Impact Fees, and 
 Pavement Removal  General Fund monies may be allocated through the 
 Curb and Gutter  City budget for specific programs. 
 Bulbout/sidewalk surfacing/ramps   
 Drainage  Table 13‐5 provides an overview of currently 
  available sources to consider.  This is not intended 
Bicycle Improvements  to be a fully comprehensive list, but rather a 
 Signal modifications  summary of potential funding sources to explore. 
 Slurry seal   
 Striping   
 
Roadway Improvements 
 Angled parking 
 Roadway directional conversions 
 Traffic signals 
 Peak hour flex lane 
 Turn pocket 
 
Table 13‐4 displays the planning‐level cost 
estimation associated with the implementation of 

102 | DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN
CHAPTER 13 | IMPLEMENTATION
 

Table 13-5 Funding Sources
Funding Sources & Agency Funding Requirements Relevant Eligible Activities
Construction, planning, and design of on-road and off-
Transportation Alternatives road trail facilities for non-motorized users, including
Program USDOT FHWA 20% local match required. sidewalks, bicycle infrastructure, pedestrian and
Administered by Caltrans bicycle signals, traffic calming techniques, lighting,
ADA projects, and other safety-related infrastructure.
Active Transportation Capital improvements, including the environmental,
Program Local match not required. design, right-of-way, and construction phases of a
Caltrans capital project.
All applications must include a
TransNet Active Bicycle facilities and connectivity improvements,
Resolution passed by the local city
Transportation Program pedestrian and walkable community projects, bicycle
council or governing board. The
and pedestrian safety projects and programs, and
SANDAG resolution must detail the source(s) of
traffic calming projects.
matching funds.
All applications must include a
TransNet Smart Growth Local agency salaries, professional services,
Resolution passed by the local city
Incentive Program preliminary engineering, right-of-way acquisition,
council or governing board. The
construction, project management costs, and other
SANDAG resolution must detail the source(s) of
direct expenses incurred on behalf of the project.
matching funds.
Storm Water Grant Program Water Code section 10563 requires Implementation – Multi-benefit storm water
(SWGP) public agencies to develop a Storm management projects such as green infrastructure,
California Environmental Water Resource Plan as a condition of rainwater and storm water capture projects.
Protection Agency – State receiving grant funds for storm water
and dry weather runoff capture projects. Planning – Develop Storm Water Resource Plans.
Water Resources Control Board
Parking District revenues may be used to implement
parking lots and structures, related landscaping, and
Downtown Parking District mobility enhancements facilitating the use of
Council Policy 100-18 provides direction
alternative forms of transportation to reduce parking
City of San Diego / on Community Parking Districts and the
demand including, but not limited to, bike parking, bike
Civic San Diego allocation of collected revenues.
facilities, pedestrian ramps, crossings, pop-outs,
sidewalks, countdown indicators, signage, and shuttle
stops.
The FY 2016 Adopted General Fund expenditures
General Fund The City of San Diego adopts a budget budget includes allocations to repairing streets and
City of San Diego / each June including allocations for investing in infrastructure such as parks, sidewalks,
Civic San Diego General Fund expenditures. street lights, bicycle facilities, roads, ADA access,
traffic signals, and storm water.
Development Impact Fees (DIF) are collected to
Development Impact Fees mitigate development impacts through financing
Improvement must be identified in the
City of San Diego / provisions for public facilities, such as street, transit,
Public Facilities Financing Plan.
Civic San Diego bicycle and pedestrian improvements, promenades,
and below grade parking structures.
Developer Obligations Project must be the result of a direct
Facilities directly impacted by, or fronting, a
City of San Diego / impact or a frontage improvement
development project.
Civic San Diego imposed by a development project.

DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN | 103
CHAPTER 13 | IMPLEMENTATION

13.6 Monitoring
On‐going monitoring can be useful in gauging the 
effectiveness and related responses to investments 
in infrastructure projects and changes to the 
transportation network.  The transportation 
planning field currently suffers from a lack of data 
related to bicycle and pedestrian activity.  As new 
bicycle and pedestrian facilities are implemented it 
is important to understand community responses to 
these infrastructural investments. 
   
Regular annual or bi‐annual monitoring at set  A pedestrian and a bicyclist pass over a permanent bicycle and 
locations can inform changes in activity levels to  pedestrian counter installed on the Harbor Drive multi‐use path. 
better gauge changes in safety.  The data can be   
used to justify future infrastructure investments 
and help pursue grant funding by providing the 
information necessary to estimate potential 
impacts of implementing future active 
transportation related projects.  For example, the 
following indicators can be used to inform the 
completion of the Caltrans Active Transportation 
Program grant application: 
 Current and projected numbers/rates of 
users 
 Collision history 
 Data collected prior to and after project 
implementation may be used to estimate 
benefits of implementing future facilities 
 
Additionally, monitoring roadways can inform the 
level of impact that roadway modifications, such as 
road diets and lane diets, have on roadway and   
intersection level of service.  This information can  A technician installs a temporary tube counter used to measure 
bicycle volumes on roadways with vehicular traffic. 
be used to evaluate feasibility of similar future 
projects or may necessitate additional responses.

104 | DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN
Downtown San Diego
Revised Draft Mobility Plan
Appendices

April 2016
This page was intentionally left blank.
Columbia Street and Beech Street
Columbia Street and Beech Street
Two-Way Cycle Tracks
F Intersection type
Columbia Street

Beech Street

F-10 | DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN
N
Project Description
• Beech Street: Two-way cycle track, separated by parallel parking along the southside.
• Curb extensions are proposed where feasible.
Note that conceptual plan illustrations are provided to demonstrate general feasibility
of the subject proposal only. Actual improvements will require additional engineering
studies and design work and shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Downtown San Diego Columbia Street and Beech Street
Mobility Plan Intersection Concept Design
Sixth Avenue and J Street
Sixth Avenue and J Street
Two-Way Cycle Tracks

G Intersection type

Bike Box

Sixth Avenue
J Street

N

Project Description
• J Street: Two-way cycle track, separated by parallel parking, along the southside.
• Sixth Avenue: Two-way cycle track, separated by parallel parking, along the eastside.
• Curb extensions are proposed where feasible.

Note that conceptual plan illustrations are provided to demonstrate general feasibility
of the subject proposal only. Actual improvements will require additional engineering
studies and design work and shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Downtown San Diego Sixth Avenue and J Street

DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN | F-11
Mobility Plan Intersection Concept Design
State Street and Beech Street
State Street and Beech Street
State Street

Two-Way Cycle Tracks
G Intersection type
Bike Box
Beech Street

F-12 | DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN
N
Project Description
• State Street: Two-way cycle track, separated by parallel parking, along the westside.
• Beech Street: Two-way cycle track, separated by parallel parking, along the southside.
• Curb extensions are proposed where feasible.
Note that conceptual plan illustrations are provided to demonstrate general feasibility
of the subject proposal only. Actual improvements will require additional engineering
studies and design work and shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Downtown San Diego State Street and Beech Street
Mobility Plan Intersection Concept Design
Union Street and Beech Street
Union Street and Beech Street
Two Cycle Tracks

Intersection type

Street
H

Green Street
Union
Beech Street

N

Project Description
• Beech Street: Two-way cycle track, separated by parallel parking, along the southside.
• Union Street: Designated Green Street.

Note that conceptual plan illustrations are provided to demonstrate general feasibility
of the subject proposal only. Actual improvements will require additional engineering
studies and design work and shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Downtown San Diego Union Street and Beech Street

DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN | F-13
Mobility Plan Intersection Concept Design
Front Street - First Avenue and Beech Street
Front Streets - First Avenue
First Avenue
Front Street

Peak Hour Travel Lane

with Beech Street
Peak Hour Travel Lane

One-Way Cycle Tracks
I Intersection type
Beech Street
Peak Hour Travel Lane

F-14 | DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN
N
Project Description
• Beech Street: Two-way cycle track, separated by parallel parking, on the southside.
• Signal modifications are proposed at both intersections to accommodate cyclists.
• Curb extensions are proposed where feasible.
Note that conceptual plan illustrations are provided to demonstrate general feasibility
of the subject proposal only. Actual improvements will require additional engineering
studies and design work and shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Downtown San Diego Front Street - First Avenue and Beech Street
Mobility Plan Intersection Concept Design
Fourth - Fifth Avenue and Beech Street

Fourth Avenue and Fifth
Avenue with Beech Street
Two-Way Cycle Tracks

J Intersection type

Bike Box

Fifth Avenue
Peak Hour Travel Lane
Peak Hour Travel Lane

Fourth Avenue
Beech Street

No Right Turn No Right Turn
on Red on Red

N
Peak Hour Travel Lane
Pea k Hour Tra vel La ne

Project Description
• Beech Street: Two-way cycle track, separated by parallel parking, on the southside.
• Fourth & Fifth Avenue: One-way cycle tracks to the left of the vehicular travel lanes.
• Signal modifications are proposed at both intersections to accommodate cyclists.
• Curb extensions are proposed where feasible.

Note that conceptual plan illustrations are provided to demonstrate general feasibility
of the subject proposal only. Actual improvements will require additional engineering
studies and design work and shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Downtown San Diego

DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN | F-15
Fourth - Fifth Avenue and Beech Street
Mobility Plan Intersection Concept Design
Third Avenue - Fourth Avenue and B Street
Third Avenue
Third andand
Avenue Fourth Avenue
Fourth
Fourth Avenue
Third Avenue

with B Street
Avenue with B Street
Two-Way
Two-WayCycle Tracks
Cycle Tracks
K E&& AT Intersection
Intersectiontype
types
Bike
BikeBox
Box
B Street

F-16 | DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN
N
Project Description
• B Street: Two-way cycle track, separated by parallel parking, along the southside of B Street.
• Fourth Avenue: North of B Street, one-way cycle track terminates at the intersection.
• Third Avenue: South of B Street, two-way cycle track, separated by parallel parking along the westside. Signal modifications are proposed at both intersections to accommodate cyclists.
• Curb extensions are proposed where feasible.
Note that conceptual plan illustrations are provided to demonstrate general feasibility
of the subject proposal only. Actual improvements will require additional engineering
studies and design work and shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Downtown San Diego Third Avenue - Fourth Avenue and B Street
Mobility Plan Intersection Concept Design
Sixth Avenue and C Street
Sixth Avenue and C Street
One-Way Cycle Tracks

L Intersection type

Sixth Avenue
C Street

N

Project Description
• C Street: Two-way cycle track along the northside, east of Sixth Avenue, replacing a single eastbound vehicular travel lane.
• Sixth Avenue: Two-cycle cycle track along the eastside.
• Signal modifications are proposed to accommodate cyclists.

Note that conceptual plan illustrations are provided to demonstrate general feasibility
of the subject proposal only. Actual improvements will require additional engineering
studies and design work and shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Downtown San Diego Sixth Avenue and C Street

DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN | F-17
Mobility Plan Intersection Concept Design
Seventh Avenue and C Street
Seventh Avenue and C Street
Two-Way Cycle Tracks
Seventh Avenue

M Intersection type
Bike Box
C Street

F-18 | DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN
N
Project Description
• C Street: Two-way cycle track along the northside, replacing a single eastbound vehicular travel lane.
• Signal modifications are proposed to accommodate cyclists.
• Curb extensions are proposed where feasible.
Note that conceptual plan illustrations are provided to demonstrate general feasibility
of the subject proposal only. Actual improvements will require additional engineering
studies and design work and shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Downtown San Diego Seventh Avenue and C Street
Mobility Plan Intersection Concept Design
Park Boulevard and C Street
Park Boulevard and C Streets
Two-Way Cycle Tracks

N Intersection type

Bike Box

TO
YIELD

TURNING
BICYCLES
C Street

Park Boulevard
N

Project Description
• C Street: Two-way cycle track along the northside.
• Park Boulevard: North of C Street, one-way cycle tracks in both directions. South of C Street two-way side path on the eastside of the roadway.
• Signal modifications are proposed to accommodate cyclists.

Note that conceptual plan illustrations are provided to demonstrate general feasibility
of the subject proposal only. Actual improvements will require additional engineering
studies and design work and shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN | F-19
Downtown San Diego Park Boulevard and C Street
Mobility Plan Intersection Concept Design
Pacific Highway and W. Broadway
One-Way Cycle Tracks
O Intersection type
W. Broadway

F-20 | DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN
N
Project Description
• West Broadway: One-way cycle tracks in both directions.
• Pacific Highway: One-way cycle tracks in both directions.
• Signal modifications are proposed to accommodate cyclists.
Note that conceptual plan illustrations are provided to demonstrate general feasibility
of the subject proposal only. Actual improvements will require additional engineering
studies and design work and shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Downtown San Diego Pacific Highway and W. Broadway
Mobility Plan Intersection Concept Design
State Street and Broadway
State Street and Broadway
Two-Way Cycle Tracks

P Intersection type

State Street
Bike Box

Broadway

N

Project Description
• Broadway: One-way cycle tracks in both directions.
• State Street: Two-way cycle track on the westside.
• Signal modifications are proposed to accommodate cyclists.
• Curb extensions are proposed where feasible.
Note that conceptual plan illustrations are provided to demonstrate general feasibility
of the subject proposal only. Actual improvements will require additional engineering
studies and design work and shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Downtown San Diego

DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN | F-21
State Street and Broadway
Mobility Plan Intersection Concept Design
First Avenue and Broadway
First Avenue and Broadway
One-Way Cycle Tracks
First Avenue

Q Intersection type
Broadway

F-22 | DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN
N
Project Description
• Broadway: One-way cycle tracks in both directions.
• Signal modifications are proposed to accommodate cyclists.
• Curb extensions are proposed where feasible.
Note that conceptual plan illustrations are provided to demonstrate general feasibility
of the subject proposal only. Actual improvements will require additional engineering
studies and design work and shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Downtown San Diego First Avenue and Broadway
Mobility Plan Intersection Concept Design
Second Avenue and Broadway

Second Avenue and Broadway
Two-Way Cycle Tracks

R Intersection type

Broadway

Second Avenue
Transit Lane

N

Project Description
• Broadway: One-way cycle tracks, in both directions. East of the intersection the cycle track transitions to shared lane markings to accommodate a brief transit only lane segment (one block).
• Signal modifications are proposed to accommodate cyclists.
• Curb extensions are proposed where feasible.

Note that conceptual plan illustrations are provided to demonstrate general feasibility
of the subject proposal only. Actual improvements will require additional engineering
studies and design work and shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN | F-23
Downtown San Diego Second Avenue and Broadway
Mobility Plan Intersection Concept Design
Third Avenue and Broadway
Third Avenue and Broadway
Two-Way Cycle Tracks
Third Avenue

S Intersection type
Bike Box
Broadway
Transit Lane

F-24 | DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN
N
Project Description
• Broadway: One-way cycle tracks, are proposed along Broadway in the westbound direction. In the eastbound direction, shared lane markings are provided for bicyclists.
• Third Avenue: North of Broadway, a two-way cycle track on the westside of the roadway.
• Signal modifications are proposed to accommodate cyclists.
Note that conceptual plan illustrations are provided to demonstrate general feasibility
of the subject proposal only. Actual improvements will require additional engineering
studies and design work and shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Downtown San Diego Third Avenue and Broadway
Mobility Plan Intersection Concept Design
Park Boulevard and Broadway
Park Boulevard and Broadway
Two-Way Cycle Tracks

T Intersection type
Bike Box

Park Boulevard
Broadway

N

Project Description
• Park Boulevard: Two-way side path on the eastside.
• Curb extensions are proposed where feasible.
• Signal modifications are proposed to accommodate cyclists.

Note that conceptual plan illustrations are provided to demonstrate general feasibility
of the subject proposal only. Actual improvements will require additional engineering
studies and design work and shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Downtown San Diego

DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN | F-25
Park Boulevard and Broadway
Mobility Plan Intersection Concept Design
Sixth Avenue and F Street
Sixth Avenue and F Street
Sixth Avenue

Two-Way Cycle Tracks
U Intersection type
Bike Box
F Street

F-26 | DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN
N
Project Description
• Sixth Avenue: Two-way cycle track, separated by parallel parking, along the eastside.
• Signal modifications are proposed to accommodate cyclists.
• Curb extensions are proposed where feasible.
Note that conceptual plan illustrations are provided to demonstrate general feasibility
of the subject proposal only. Actual improvements will require additional engineering
studies and design work and shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Downtown San Diego Sixth Avenue and F Street
Mobility Plan Intersection Concept Design
Park Boulevard and E Street
Park boulevard and E Street
Two-Way Cycle Tracks

U Intersection type
Bike Box

Park Boulevard
E Street
Green Street

N

Project Description
• E Street: Designated Green Street, will also be converted from a one-way eastbound to a two-way roadway.
• Park Boulevard: North of E Street, two-way side path on the eastside of the roadway. South of E Street, two-way cycle track, replacing a vehicular travel lane.
• Signal modifications are proposed to accommodate cyclists.

Note that conceptual plan illustrations are provided to demonstrate general feasibility
of the subject proposal only. Actual improvements will require additional engineering
studies and design work and shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Downtown San Diego

DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN | F-27
Park Boulevard and E Street
Mobility Plan Intersection Concept Design
Sixth Avenue and K Street
Sixth Avenue

Sixth Avenue and K Street
Two-Way Cycle Tracks
V Intersection type
Bike Box
K Street

F-28 | DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN
N
Project Description
• Sixth Avenue: Two-way cycle track, separated by parallel parking, along the eastside.
• Curb extensions are proposed where feasible.
Note that conceptual plan illustrations are provided to demonstrate general feasibility
of the subject proposal only. Actual improvements will require additional engineering
studies and design work and shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Downtown San Diego Sixth Avenue and K Street
Mobility Plan Intersection Concept Design
Appendix G
Additional Design Concepts
This page was intentionally left blank.
DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN | G-1
Downtown San Diego State Street between Date Street and Cedar Street
Mobility Plan
G-2 | DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO MOBILITY PLAN
Downtown San Diego Park Boulevard between Market Street and Island Avenue
Mobility Plan
This page was intentionally left blank.
U
I
I